Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CHURCHES AND UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Churches and Universities (Scotland) Widows' and Orphans' Fund," presented by Mr. James Stuart; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

PETITION (OLD-AGE PENSIONS)

Mr. Clement Davies: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a humble Petition on behalf of the old-age pensioners of this country. The Petition has been signed by over 77,000 old-age pensioners and others, and, in the main, signatures have been added under the supervision of the mayors of boroughs, chairmen of urban district councils and old-age pensioners' clubs.
The Petition calls attention to the great hardship that is being suffered at the

present moment by old-age pensioners on account of the increased cost of living. The Petition concludes:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that an interim increase in the basic rate of old-age pension be made immediately. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Staff Recruitment (Political and Religious Views)

Sir R. Perkins: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that electricity boards ask applicants for such posts as that of meter reader/collector for their political and religious views; and, in view of the fact that applicants feel that the wrong answer may prejudice their application, whether he will give a general direction to the Authority that questions of this kind should cease.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I agree that such questions are liable to lead to misunderstanding and are best avoided, but I have no reason to suppose that they are commonly asked. The methods adopted by boards in interviewing prospective employees are their own managerial responsibility, and a general direction on this subject would not be appropriate or necessary, but I am taking steps to see that my views are fully understood by the boards.

Sir R. Perkins: Is the Minister aware that when a Mr. Stephens of Stroud


applied for a post with the Midland Electricity Board, he and all the other applicants were asked their political and religious beliefs? After investigating this case, will not the Minister reconsider his decision and issue an instruction to the three boards for which he is responsible suggesting that this undesirable practice should cease at once?

Mr. Lloyd: As I said, I do not think that this is a matter which it is appropriate to deal with by a general direction, but I am taking steps to see that my views are fully understood by the boards.

Power Stations (Load Factor)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that the load factor of publicly-owned electric power houses has fallen from 47·1 per cent. in 1950–51 to 44·7 per cent. in 1952–53 and 43·9 per cent. in 1953–54; and as this reflects a decline in occupational efficiency of valuable national assets at a time of rising general industrial productivity, what regard he is having to these trends when sanctioning new power house constructional programmes of the British Electricity Authority.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The relatively high load factor in 1950–51 was achieved only by the use of old plant and resort to load shedding. The load factor has fallen since then because the B.E.A. has installed enough new capacity to avoid load shedding, reduce its reliance on old plant and thus raise the efficiency of the system. The efforts of the B.E.A. to diversify the load, however, should lead in future years, as the development programmes to which I recently gave my general approval are carried out, to a steady improvement in the load factor.

Generating Costs (Fuel Oil)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power in view of the policy of the Government in substituting oil, within a few years, for 10 million tons of coal burned annually at our power stations and converting to dual firing, what steps he has taken to establish the comparative costs of electricity production, respectively, by coal and oil; and what steps he is taking to prevent a rise in electricity prices resulting from oil substitution for coal.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The British Electricity Authority hope to negotiate agreements with the oil companies for the supply of fuel oil on the lines of the agreement made for the Marchwood Power Station. If price parity with coal is agreed, no increase in price should result from the use of this oil.

Mr. Noel-Baker: With regard to this and previous Questions, is the right hon. Gentleman in agreement with his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour in desiring to spread the load and have more shift work, so making more efficient use of our power stations, or does he simply propose to go on increasing the number of power stations in order to meet every increase in the industrial demand for electricity?

Mr. Lloyd: The two things are not incompatible. It is important to increase the number of power stations, firstly, to avoid fuel cuts, and secondly, to meet the increased demand we expect in the future. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are equally keen to see greater use being made of the shift system, which would greatly increase the efficiency of the electric power supply.

Power Station, Richborough

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement on the position regarding the projected electrical power station at Richborough; whether a site has yet been selected; and whether the station will be coal or oil fired.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The British Electricity Authority has made no application to me for my statutory consent to build a generating station at Richborough, but I am aware that the Kent County Council has shown in the town development plan for Richborough a site for a generating station and that the Authority has not yet been able to obtain the permission of the landowner to enter the site or make the trial borings which are essential before any design work can be done on the project.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Deliveries (Grades and Prices)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is now satisfied that coal merchants, in delivering


coal of 2 cwts. and more, are observing the instructions of Article 11 of the Retail Coal Prices Order and specifying the grade and price of coal delivered to each consumer.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Joynson-Hicks): My right hon. Friend is satisfied that merchants are aware of the requirements of the Order and generally comply with them. Appropriate action is taken when contraventions are discovered or are brought to the notice of officers empowered to investigate them.

Mrs. Mann: Could the hon. Gentleman say, once the coal is delivered, what steps are taken to ensure that the coal in the cellar is of the same group as is stated on the price ticket?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: If there is reason to suspect that it is not, my right hon. Friend's enforcement officers have powers to investigate the matter.

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that many old-age pensioners are receiving low grade coal delivered to them at prices which indicate higher grades; and if he can extend to 1 cwt. deliveries the requirements of group pricing, particularly on delivery lorries.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: All retail deliveries are already subject to price control. My right hon. Friend is not contemplating any amendment of the Retail Coal Prices Order, nor is he aware of particular cases affecting old-age pensioners in which the Order has been contravened, but if the hon. Member will let me know of any such case, I will have it investigated.

Mrs. Mann: Why should I have to act as a private detective for the National Coal Board and the Minister? When a lorry is delivering 1 cwt. bags of coal, is it not possible to know whether it is delivering the correct group at the correct price? As there is a difference of as much as 3s. 10½d. per cwt. between Group 7 and Group 1, surely this is vitally necessary?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: All deliveries are subject to retail price control, and therefore if a delivery is made upon a wrong basis, either as to its group or its price,

the law is being broken. The problem is to obtain evidence of any breach of the law, and if the hon. Lady has any suspicion of any such case, we shall be very glad to investigate it.

Mrs. Mann: But who is to provide the evidence? Does the hon. Gentleman expect me to go up and down the country looking for it? Are the fuel officials to sit on their hunkers in their offices while somebody else is rooting out cases in which the law is broken?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: After her speech in the last debate on this subject, I was hoping that the hon. Lady would provide us with some grounds upon which investigations could be made, but unfortunately she was not able to disclose the name of the merchant concerned. I should add that upwards of 40 prosecutions have already taken place this year.

Mr. Nabarro: Is not the ending of house coal rationing the effective answer to all these complaints and difficulties. In view of the very marginal and relatively small additional supplies of coal which would now be involved, is the present cumbersome system, costing £1¼ million a year, really necessary?

Mrs. Mann: That is nonsense. Let the Coal Board deliver the coal itself.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: My hon. Friend is quite right as to the first part of his supplementary question. The real solution can be achieved only when the de-rationing of coal is possible.

Portsmouth

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement as to the coal position in Portsmouth, and the future prospects.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am making inquiries and will write to my hon. Friend.

Sir J. Lucas: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, owing to the very wet summer, much more coal is being used than is usual? Will he do his utmost to see that Portsmouth, which is a very important city, does not go short?

Mr. Lloyd: Portsmouth not only uses more, but is getting more.

Direct Consumer Sales

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how far it is the policy of the Government to expand direct consumer sales of house coal by the National Coal Board at the expense of sales attracted from the co-operatives, coal departments and other merchants; and what retail price provisions he makes in this connection.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The same retail coal regulations apply to the board as to all other merchants. The Government's policy is to encourage fair competition between all concerned.

Mr. Nabarro: But is not the National Coal Board in a privileged position in this matter, as a monopoly producer of all the country's coal? Is it not also the fact that present trends show that the National Coal Board is increasing its supplies of house coal direct to domestic consumers, and that that increase is at the expense of the co-operative societies and private enterprise coal merchants? Is it desirable that a Conservative Government should give consent to a trend which could lead to the nationalisation of coal merchanting?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that my hon. Friend is under some misapprehension. It must be remembered that while the allocation of the total amount of coal for domestic supplies for the whole country is made by the Government, the distribution between the various merchants, including the National Coal Board, is done by the merchants' own organisation.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of that relatively unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at a very early date.

Domestic Supplies

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what arrangements are made to provide those who use coal stoves for cooking purposes with best quality coal.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The National Coal Board is responsible for allocating the better grades of coal between merchants, and the latter do their best, I am sure, to meet special requirements.

Mineworkers' Houses (Rents)

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board that they should not fix rents for houses let to miners above the average of those charged by local authorities for equivalent houses in the corresponding area.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: No, Sir. This is a question of management, which is the responsibility of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Snow: That form of answer was not exactly unexpected, owing to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is inhibited from answering directly for the National Coal Board; but is he aware that on the newly created Pear Tree Estate at Rugeley the rentals are some 8s. a week more per house than for the equivalent house in the immediate vicinity? This is causing some dissatisfaction. Will he bring this matter to the attention of the National Coal Board?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the problems which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. If he would be prepared to accept it, I should be prepared to give him some advice afterwards as to the best method of proceeding further.

St. Margarets Bay, East Kent (Survey)

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the borehole at St. Margarets Bay has yet yielded information helpful in reaching a decision on whether or not a new pit should be sunk in East Kent.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: This is a matter for the National Coal Board, and I have asked them to communicate with my hon. Friend on the matter.

Distributed Stocks

Mr. Godber: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the figure for distributed stocks of house coal to the latest convenient date together with comparable figures for the last two years.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: 1·66 million tons of merchants' stocks on 6th November, compared with 2·01 million last year and 2·09 the year before.

Mr. Godber: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the stocks are likely to be sufficient to meet all reasonable needs?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes. For two reasons. First, about 700,000 tons more coal has been delivered during this summer than during the summer of last year. Second, the imports which we have arranged are largely composed of house coal.

Mr. Langford-Holt: In view of the vast increase in imports—which information the Minister gave last week—and the reduction in the present stocks, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he regards the situation as being anything but satisfactory?

Mr. Lloyd: The position is that imports are coming in at the rate of over 100,000 tons a week.

Householders' Complaints (Fuel Overseers)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what instructions he has given to his fuel overseers for helping householders to settle complaints.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: They have been instructed to advise householders who are dissatisfied about the quality of their coal and, where necessary, to remind merchants of their obligations in this matter, but it is not part of their duty to settle complaints about coal quality.

Mr. Iremonger: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still general dissatisfaction among householders about the quality of coal supplied to them, by virtue of the fact that the invariable reply of the merchants is that they, in turn, can get no satisfaction from the National Coal Board?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: No, Sir; I do not think there is that general feeling at the present time. If my hon. Friend has details of any particular case, I shall be very glad to look into it.

Mrs. Mann: Does the hon. Gentleman know that, on page 30 of the National Coal Board's Report, it actually complains that merchants are not complaining to it when they get a bad consignment? Surely the public outside do not know that the Coal Board wish complaints to be made about bad consignments? Cannot we have some co-ordination between the Minister and the public, to see that complaints are properly made by the merchants to the Coal Board?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Merchants are quite familiar with this procedure, and I know that the Coal Merchants Association in Scotland is most anxious that the allegations which the hon. Lady has made to the House should be substantiated or otherwise.

Fuel Efficiency

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in view of the large sums of money which have had to be provided by the nationalised fuel and power industries for the establishment of the new Fuel Efficiency Company, and the objections raised, he will reconsider his previous decision against a levy to enable private industry to contribute to the funds of the company.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Palmer: Is it not wrong in principle that privately-owned industry, which stands to gain so much financially and otherwise from increased fuel efficiency, should not bear some share of the cost of this service? Did not the Ridley Committee recommend and support the principle of a levy?

Mr. Lloyd: The Pilkington Committee endorsed this form of financing the new organisation. I am glad to say that the new organisation is already receiving fees from industry to the extent of £20,000 a year.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that this work is really on far too small a scale? Will not the right hon. Gentleman therefore consider my hon. Friend's proposal to increase it greatly?

Mr. Lloyd: I think we have to see how the new organisation gets to work. It is expanding rapidly.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number and value of interest-free loans made so far by the new Fuel Efficiency Company to private industrial concerns for the installation of fuel-saving equipment.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: There is a Government scheme under which loans can be made that are free of interest for the first two years, and I have so far approved 95 such loans totalling nearly £700,000.

Coalite (Supplies)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power approximately the amount of Coalite produced and available for domestic consumption during the past six months; and to what extent the demand now exceeds the supply.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: It is not the practice to divulge information on the activities of individual firms.

Mr. Sorensen: Could not the right hon. Gentleman give me some sort of figure? Is he not aware that there is a shortage of Coalite in some parts of London, particularly in Essex? Is he also aware that there appears to be discrimination in the supply of Coalite to retailers, in view of the fact that the London Co-operative Society has no Coalite to distribute to its customers?

Mr. Lloyd: Both coke in general and Coalite, being a low-temperature coke, are de-restricted at the present time. This particular product is made by one firm and is in short supply. I will make inquiries about the point.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when making these inquiries, pay regard to my suggestion that there is possibly discrimination against the London Co-operative Society?

Mr. Lloyd: I have not heard of any such discrimination.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Tea (Retail Prices)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Food the average price per lb. of tea on 1st January, 1954; and, in view of the fact that the price is now considerably higher, and has risen in the last few months, if he will consider the reimposition of price control.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): The average retail price of tea was 5s. 2½d. per lb. on 1st January this year. I have nothing to add to the reply given on 26th October to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann).

Miss Burton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I shall be able to supplement his information, which is quite useless as we have not had it yet? Is he

aware that Lyon's Green Label tea, which is of average quality only, was on 7th January this year 5s. lb. and is now 6s. 8d. lb., which is an increase of 1s. 8d.? What is the Minister going to do about this? Or are we to wait until the General Election before the old people may have the tea they want?

Dr. Hill: It is true, and I regret it, that there has been a substantial increase in the price of tea this year due to a number of causes, including the costs in the tea gardens, and including increased consumption in India and America. It is hoped that, with the arrival of the new crop, we may begin to see a reduction in prices.

Mr. Gower: Has my hon. Friend taken note of the fact that the recent Labour Party Conference emphatically rejected the idea of price controls, which are the only things which would affect this matter?

Mr. Callaghan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House would be very happy if he could say what the reasons are against re-imposing temporarily price control on tea?

Dr. Hill: Because, of itself, price control would not bring more tea and would need to be supplemented by consumer subsidies, which would mean a return to rationing.

L.C.C. Restaurants (Losses)

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Food how much of the capital and revenue loss, respectively, incurred by the London County Council civil restaurants was met from the accumulated profits of the civil restaurants and their predecessors, the Londoners Meals Service.

Dr. Hill: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gibson: Surely the hon. Gentleman is making this more difficult than he ought? There are two figures involved. Is he aware that the figures, which were given in reply to an earlier Question, of a £98,000 loss arising on capital expenditure and a £170,000 loss on revenue account, have been met by


accumulated reserves, accumulated profits? It is completely misleading to give replies to Questions of this kind which do not tell the London ratepayers that there has not been a charge on the ratepayers for the London civic restaurants.

Dr. Hill: When the problem came to my right hon. and gallant Friend under the Act of 1947 there had been a loss in the three preceding years of £161,000. My right hon. and gallant Friend was required by the Act to give a dispensation only if he could see a prospect of profitability. He gave that dispensation in 1952 and 1953, and there was a loss in 1952–53 of £5,100 and in 1953–54 of £8,700. The amount that has fallen on the rates has been £71,000 in the last four years.

Mr. Gibson: I am sorry, but the Minister is mixing it up in talking about something about which I did not ask a Question. The Question was how much of the losses, the paper losses, have been met. The objection was that he did not give all the figures when he gave the earlier reply, which was, as I have said, that there had been a loss of £98,000 on the capital account. A great proportion of the loss has been met from accumulated reserves.

Dr. Hill: It is true that some £200,000 of the losses have been met from the reserves which might otherwise have gone to the relief of London's rates. It is equally true that £71,000 has fallen on London's rates in four years.

Mr. Nabarro: The Labour Party is a high rate party.

Following is the information:
Of the losses incurred since 1st April, 1949, £105,137 was met from the accumulated surplus on revenue account at that date and £98,205 from a reserve fund. The balance of loss amounting to £71,157 was charged to rates. My right hon. Friend understands that the reserve fund arose from the Londoners Meals Service which functioned prior to the coming into operation of the Civic Restaurants Act, 1947. I am unable to give the allocation of these accumulated profits between capital and revenue loss.

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Food how much in Profits and Income Tax was contributed by the London County Council civic restaurants during the whole period of its operation.

Dr. Hill: This information is not available to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Skeffington: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether or not it is a fact that a very considerable sum of money was paid through Income Tax and Profits Tax to the Treasury that might have gone otherwise in reliefs of which he spoke with such concern just now?

Dr. Hill: Under the 1947 Act, my right hon. Friend comes into the picture and has the facts reported to him only if there has been a loss. On the general point, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I have just given to the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson).

Mr. Gibson: It was evasive.

Bread (Subsidy and Profit Margin)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that many bakers are proposing to discontinue the production of National bread on the grounds that it is no longer an economic proposition; and what action he intends to take in this matter.

Dr. Hill: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) on 8th November.

Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many local bakery associations are urging a stop-production ultimatum? Would he undertake to see that, while the Government desire more National bread to be eaten, people will be able to get National bread in all districts, and that, if necessary, a further subsidy will be given?

Dr. Hill: I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said and the very real problems that confront small bakers. A claim for an increase in the net profit margin has been presented by the trade and is now under consideration. I hope that it will not be long before it will be possible to give a reply.

Bacon Pigs

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the losses to farmers on bacon pigs which are slightly overweight, he will introduce a graduated price scale for pigs exceeding 170 lb. deadweight.

Dr. Hill: No, Sir. Prices of bacon pigs are now determined in commercial negotiations between the producers and curers.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that the difference between 169 lb. and 171 lb. deadweight of pig means a loss of £7 to many of the farmers? Will he not look into this matter again? If he cannot do anything about it, perhaps he will find a few running tracks to enable the pigs to get a few pounds off them before they weigh in?

Dr. Hill: The present position is that the pork market has strengthened and prices being obtained on the pork market now compare favourably with prices paid by the bacon curer.

Mr. Bullard: Will my hon. Friend pay not too much attention to the representations of the hon. Gentleman opposite? Is he aware that farmers are very anxious to produce the article the consumers require, and that if they are paid a good price for the article that is wanted, they are quite willing to suffer a penalty for producing an article which is not wanted?

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food the percentage of bacon pigs which factories have declined to accept because of insufficient quality during the latest convenient three-months' period.

Dr. Hill: This is a commercial matter between the bacon curers and their suppliers, but I will ask the interests concerned to send the hon. Gentleman such information as they can.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that, in reply to a supplementary question which I put to him last week, his right hon. Friend said that it was quality which was cutting down the number of pigs entering the factories? At what point is the quality decided?

Dr. Hill: The present position is that bacon factories are able to take all the pigs which are offered.

Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware that last week one of our local bacon factories had 90 per cent. Grade A pigs?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that pig producers throughout the country are still very gravely dissatisfied with the Government's conduct over the whole of this

situation? Has he had no complaints from the National Farmers' Union about it?

Dr. Hill: There had been complaints about the difficulty in the acceptance of bacon pigs by bacon curers, but the Government were not responsible for the circumstances leading to those complaints.

Imported Fruit (Insecticides)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Food if he is satisfied that imported oranges and other fruit are now unaffected by insecticides or preservatives such as were used formerly by fruit growers overseas.

Dr. Hill: I believe that oranges are now unaffected by thiourea. A careful watch is being kept on certain other imported fruits such as pears for any remains of insecticides.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that at least one local health officer reported the detection of thiourea preservatives on oranges, not from Spain but from other parts of the world?

Dr. Hill: That has not been reported to us, but I should be glad to make inquiries if the hon. Member would supply the information.

Old-Age Pensioners (Food Consumption)

Mr. Leather: asked the Minister of Food the nutritional value of the food shown in the food survey of his Department to be consumed by old-age pensioners; and how this compares with recent years.

Dr. Hill: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Leather: When these figures are produced, will they show that the individual constituents of the diet eaten by old-age pensioners are better or worse than in 1951?

Dr. Hill: For the last full year for which figures are available—1953—in the case of every nutrient except one, in respect of calorific values, proteins, fats and all the rest—except one—consumption was higher in 1953 than in 1951.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the hon. Member aware that figures will not fill the bellies of the old-age pensioners who are going short of food today?

Dr. Hill: These figures are derived from the National Food Survey used by the party opposite.

Mr. Bottomley: In view of the fact that the Economic Survey says that for the country as a whole the food values are down for last year, can the Minister explain how they are up in the case of old-age pensioners?

Dr. Hill: This is a statistical survey used by both Governments, and hon.

ESTIMATED ENERGY VALUE AND NUTRIENT CONTENT OF OLD AGE PENSIONERS' DOMESTIC FOOD CONSUMPTION



(per head per day)


—
1951 (a)
1952
1953
1954 (c) (half year)


Energy value
…
…
Calories
2,264
2,341
2,474
2,486


Protein
…
…
…
g.
71
73
76
75


Fat
…
…
…
g.
90
90
99
101


Calcium
…
…
…
mg.
994
988
1,024
1,042


Iron
…
…
…
mg.
11·2
12·0
12·4
12·3


Vitamin A
…
…
…
i.u.
2,923
3,074
3,462
3,415


Vitamin B1 (b)
…
…
…
mg.
1·10
1·20
1·26
1·23


Riboflavin
…
…
…
mg.
1·49
1·56
1·61
1·59


Nicotinic acid
…
…
…
mg.
11·5
12·2
12·8
12·6


Vitamin C (b) (d)
…
…
…
mg.
44
44
44
34


Vitamin D
…
…
…
i.u.
124
128
128
118


(a) Excluding two months, March and June, for which information is not available.


(b) Allowances have been made for cooking losses according to Medical Research Council War Memorandum No. 14.


(c) Provisional estimates only for the first two quarters.


(d) The intake of this nutrient varies seasonally.

Mr. Carr: asked the Minister of Food what information is available regarding the amount of food being consumed by old-age pensioners at the present time; and how this compares with the corresponding amount in 1951.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food what results are shown by his Department's food consumption survey as to the diet of old-age pensioners as compared with recent years and with other sections of the community.

Dr. Hill: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Chapman: Do the figures relate only to calorific and protein value, or do they show, as we know to be a fact, that

Members opposite should not begin to question its statistical validity just because it does not suit them.

Mr. Carr: Can my hon. Friend assure us that this survey takes into account a proper cross-section of the pensioners and that therefore the results are reliable?

Dr. Hill: Yes. Sir.

Following are the figures:
Details of the nutritive value of old-age pensioners' diets are given below for the years 1951–53. A full analysis is not available for 1954, but provisional findings for the first half-year are included.

old-age pensioners may be eating as much meat but it is of much poorer quality, and that they are cutting down on bacon and changing to cheap foods? Is it sufficient to show the figures in protein and calorific value? What about the quality of the food?

Dr. Hill: No, Sir, it is not sufficient. These figures show that for cheese, eggs, meat, sugar and tea there was an increase in 1953 compared with 1951.

Mr. Bottomley: Without wishing to decry the figures contained in the Government's statistical survey, which we accept as well as do other hon. Members, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the Economic Survey for 1953 shows that, in the case of fats, proteins and calories for the whole of the country, the consumption was


lower? Can the Minister explain why, in the case of old-age pensioners, it is higher?

Dr. Hill: These figures, obtained by the statistical survey method—which the right hon. Gentleman does not condemn—show unanswerably that in the case of those commodities the consumption by old-age pensioners was higher.

Captain Pilkington: Are these answers likely to appear in the "Daily Herald" tomorrow?

ESTIMATED DOMESTIC FOOD CONSUMPTION


(oz. per head per week unless otherwise stated)


——
Old-Age Pensioner Households
All Households


1951 (a)
1952
1953
1954(b) (half-year)
1951(a)
1952
1953
1954(b) (half-year)


Milk, including processed (pt.or eq. pt.)
4·9
4·8
5·0
4·8
5·2
5·1
5·1
5·1


Cheese, including un-rationed
2·7
2·0
2·6
3·0
2·8
2·2
2·5
3·0


Eggs (number)
2·3
2·4
3·2
3·9
2·8
3·0
4·0
4·6


Butter
4·0
2·9
3·7
3·9
3·9
2·8
3·6
3·8


Margarine
3·8
4·4
4·4
4·6
4·1
4·4
4·3
4·8


Meat (including bacon and unrationed meat)
25·7
27·8
31·5
31·4
26·7
29·0
32·3
33·5


Sugar
11·1
10·8
13·8
16·5
11·4
11·0
13·6
16·2


Tea
2·8
3·0
3·5
3·5
2·0
2·2
2·6
2·8


(a) Excluding two months, March and June, for which information is not available.


(b) Provisional estimates only for the first two quarters.

Wheat and Barley (Deficiency Payments)

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to ensure that deficiency payments for wheat and for barley are paid to farmers with the minimum of delay.

Dr. Hill: Under the provisions of the scheme as already announced, payment will begin next month on wheat certificates received for the period to 30th September. Any deficiency payment which may be due on barley will not be payable until after the end of the cereal year, but an advance payment is under consideration and an announcement will be made shortly.

Mr. Renton: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he will give an indication when farmers are likely to receive their first payments for wheat and barley, respectively?

Mr. Hastings: Do these figures, which the Minister is giving to the House, include such foods as fresh fruit and vegetables, which contain vitamins so necessary for old people as well as for the rest of us?

Dr. Hill: The answer to Question No. 33 does include the full details of the various vitamins to which the hon. Member refers.

Following are the figures:

Dr. Hill: In the case of wheat, it is hoped that payments may begin soon. Difficulty has arisen because the certificates—some 21,000 of them—were due to be sent in by the end of last month and some 70 per cent. of those sent in were insufficiently or inaccurately filled in. Nevertheless, it is hoped shortly to begin wheat payments. As I pointed out to my hon. and learned Friend, with barley it is a question of payment at the end of the cereal year, but consideration is being given—and I say this without commitment as to the conclusion—to an advance payment on account.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Could the hon. Member tell us what he estimates is likely to be paid, both for barley and wheat?

Dr. Hill: If the right hon. Gentleman will put that Question down, I shall be glad to do so.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that farmers who have to send all their wheat to millers in order to qualify for subsidy are charged a commission of 50s. per ton on any of their own wheat which they buy back for grinding; and if he will take steps to prevent millers from charging a fee for which they perform no service.

Dr. Hill: Growers are not compelled to send wheat to millers in order to qualify for deficiency payments. A grower who knowingly obtained re-delivery of his own wheat for grinding would be in breach of the Cereals Deficiency Payments Scheme and would, consequently, lose his entitlement to deficiency payments.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that such things as are described in the Question are happening and, in fact, happened as recently as last week? Does he not think that the matter should be investigated, with particular reference to an extra profit which goes to the millers and which they do not earn?

Dr. Hill: If the hon. Member has any example of the practice which is quoted, I shall be very happy to look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Princess Flying Boats

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the new disposition of British troops, following the projected withdrawal of troops from the Suez Canal Zone, he will give priority consideration to the completion of the three Princess flying boats for trooping purposes.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): As the hon. Member will be aware, completion of the Princess flying boats must await the availability of a new type of engine. There can be no question, therefore, of their use in the near future.

Mr. Morley: Can the Minister say when a definite answer can be given about the future use of these flying boats? Is he aware that some of us have been asking that for the past three years and have not yet had an answer?

Mr. Lloyd: Certain decisions were taken before this Government came into power concerning the construction of

these boats. That is another matter. In dealing with the situation, we have to take the position as it is at present. The satisfactory use of the flying boats must depend on the development of an adequate engine. That is taking time.

Supersonic Bangs (Claims)

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Supply if his attention has been called to disturbance and damage caused by supersonic bangs over parts of Hampshire and Southampton; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Smithers: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the disturbance caused by experimental aircraft breaking the sound barrier in the neighbourhood of Winchester; and what instructions are issued to pilots with a view to reducing the nuisance caused to the minimum compatible with the national interest in aircraft development.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I much regret the disturbance which has been caused to the residents of Hampshire by supersonic bangs. Measures have already been taken to reduce the inconvenience to the public. They include strict instructions to test pilots that supersonic speeds should be reached only when required by the nature of the tests, the recording of details of all supersonic flights and their scrutiny by officers of my Department. I am examining whether any further steps are feasible, consistent with the development necessary for the defence of this country. As my predecessor informed the House on 6th July, a comprehensive review of the available data of pressures created by shock waves is in progress.

Mr. Morley: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that recently a supersonic bang caused damage estimated at £70 to a cottage in Ringwood, Hampshire? Can he tell me by what channels or by what means compensation can be obtained for that damage?

Mr. Lloyd: There is a Question on the Order Paper dealing with a claim for damage. Any information on alleged damage should be forwarded at once to me.

Mr. Smithers: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of representations


made to his Department by the Royal Hampshire County Hospital, where surgeons operating in the theatre are rather nervous about this, that the Dean and Chapter are also anxious about the Cathedral, and that the mayor has been shaken up in his parlour at the Guildhall? As the matter is beginning to assume rather serious proportions, I hope that the inquiry will be conducted with urgency.

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly do everything I can to reduce the inconvenience caused.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Supply how many claims have been received for damage alleged to be owing to supersonic bangs; and in how many cases payments have been made.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Three hundred and thirty-three claims have been received by the Ministry of Supply and payments have been made in 121 cases, up to and including 10th November, 1954. There are some 60 claims under consideration at the present time.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: As a fairly high proportion of these claims has been rejected, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider having an independent assessor attached to his Department to consider the amount and the quality of the claims which are being presented?

Mr. Lloyd: It is not my information that a substantial number of claims has been rejected. I am told that in some cases claims have been withdrawn, and that in others it has not been possible to prove any connection between the claim and the alleged cause of the claim, but if my hon. Friend will give me any evidence with regard to these cases, I will certainly consider his suggestion.

Mr. N. Nicolson: Can the Minister explain why it is that aircraft operating from coastal airports cannot he required to produce these bangs over the sea instead of over the land?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that is not the point. The point is whether aircraft operating from inland airfields could be asked to operate over the sea. That is certainly a matter which requires consideration, and we are now considering it.

Aircraft Testing (Noise Suppression)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Supply what financial or other encouragement he is giving, or proposes to give, to accelerate the use by aircraft firms of noise suppression equipment.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am continuing to encourage the important research programme, details of which were given in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) on 28th June. Letters were addressed some time ago to all manufacturers concerned, stressing their responsibilities to the public and asking them to review all measures for mitigating disturbance to the public. I have decided that the appropriate way for me to contribute is by expenditure on research estimated at about £100,000 this year.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the noise from engines under test is literally nerve-racking for workers and residents in Hucknall and other areas affected, and will he appreciate that if firms are to be encouraged to fit noise suppression equipment some financial assistance from the Government may be required?

Mr. Lloyd: I think the appropriate way for the Government to help is by pushing on with this fairly substantial research programme. I am not satisfied that the installation of noise suppression equipment should depend on financial assistance from the Government.

Mr. A. Henderson: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what progress has been made by this research?

Mr. Lloyd: I am told it is hoped that it will be possible reasonably soon to establish the kind of equipment which will mitigate the nuisance.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Supply if he is aware of the excessive noise caused by the testing of jet engines at the Ansty Aerodrome, near Coventry; and what steps he is taking to obviate this nuisance to residents in the neighbouring villages.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This matter has been discussed with Messrs. Armstrong Siddeley, who own this airfield, and I


understand that they have measures in hand to improve sound reduction arrangements in engine test houses at the aerodrome.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents are losing sleep because of this noise, which is fantastic? Even the cows are complaining—they are giving less milk in this neighbourhood—and will he impress on this firm the necessity of lessening noise in this factory?

Mr. Lloyd: I quite understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, including the agricultural implications, and I understand that improvement may be expected next month.

Mr. Edelman: Will the Minister bear in mind that this has been a long-standing grievance in Coventry, which is the home of jet engines, and will he contact the firm of Armstrong Siddeley and ask them to pay special attention to the testing of jet engines in the factory itself, as the noise is causing great inconvenience to those who live in the vicinity.

Mr. Lloyd: That is another matter to the Question on the Order Paper, but I will certainly take it into account.

Government Contracts, Northern Ireland

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Supply if, in view of the high rate of unemployment and distress in Northern Ireland, he will place further Government orders with Northern Irish firms.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I fully realise the importance of Government contracts to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is treated as a Development Area for the purpose of placing Government contracts, and we do all we can to place orders there.

Mr. Roberts: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some of the conditions prevailing in Northern Ireland are reminiscent of those of the '30s in this country, and no doubt due to the harsh treatment meted out by the National Assistance Board?

Mr. Lloyd: Without making any comment on the last matter referred to in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question,

I am concerned with the state of employment in Northern Ireland. We will certainly do what we can to help it.

Mr. McKibbin: Will the Minister bear in mind the particular case of Messrs. Short Bros., which I raised with his predecessor on several occasions? Is he aware that unemployment in Northern Ireland has been running at too high a rate over the last three years, although it is now on the downward level, and is he also aware that it is only recently that hon. Members on the other side of the House have taken any interest in this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: With regard to the question of unemployment in Northern Ireland, we will certainly do what we can, so far as this Ministry is concerned, to see that a high and stable level of employment is maintained, and seek to put as many contracts there as we possibly can.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind, when he is considering giving contracts, that at Newry and Londonderry, unemployment is running at the rate of one in four of the insured population and that some of us are very glad that our visit has stimulated some of the Ulster Unionist Members to take an interest in this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: So far as the first part of the supplementary question is concerned, we will certainly take this into account.

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that if there were National Service in Northern Ireland and if the school-leaving age were 15 instead of 14, the number of insured persons unemployed would be the same as in England?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think the matters which my hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned are matters for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Chest Clinic, North Middlesex

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Health if he is now prepared to sanction the building of the new out-patients' department of North Middlesex Hospital, including a new chest clinic.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): I am afraid that it has not yet been possible to find a place for this project in the capital programme.

Mr. Albu: Is the Minister aware that there is serious overcrowding in the chest clinic, with considerable dangers for both patients and staff, and that the number of new patients has doubled since 1948 and is still rising very rapidly indeed?

Mr. Macleod: I am aware of the problems of the North Middlesex Hospital. This problem involves expenditure of about £350,000 and, therefore, is too big a scheme for a regional hospital to bear and would have to be financed separately. I am making a review of these schemes in a few weeks' time, and this proposal will be taken into consideration.

Mr. Albu: Will the right hon. Gentleman have this chest clinic looked at by a member of his Department?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, indeed.

Mental Hospitals (Accommodation)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Health if he will give a list of the mental hospitals in the Birmingham area, showing the extent of overcrowding, at the most convenient recent date.

Mr. Iain Macleod: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Chapman: If, as is expected, the figures show a shocking degree of overcrowding, with beds one foot apart and with patients sleeping in dining rooms and, in some cases, practically on the floor, why did the Minister's Department take something like 14 to 16 months to approve plans for new building to expand the hospitals in Birmingham?

Mr. Macleod: That does not arise directly out of this Question. I have given the details of percentage overcrowding. Perhaps on a later Question of the hon. Member's we can cover the other point.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that on the committee on which I have sat for the last 30 years, we have quite a number of men who have been sleeping on the floor for over two years?

[Laughter.] I meant to say that male patients have been sleeping on the floor for the past two years. There is plenty of room for erecting new buildings in the area of the Winson Green Mental Hospital. Will the Minister consider a proposal that will shortly be coming to him, which we discussed at the last committee meeting, asking for something to be done to provide accommodation? We are now in the position of having to refuse admission to the Winson Green Mental Hospital because of the considerable overcrowding, especially of the male patients' side.

Mr. Macleod: Of course, I will look at that proposal when it comes to me. I assume that it will come through the regional board. The hon. Member will, however, in fairness agree that I have made very special and careful provision for the needs of the mental health services in the last year or two.

Following is the answer:


Mental Hospitals
Recognised bed-space in use on 1st January, 1954
Percentage over-crowding on 1st January, 1954


Winson Green
1,113
26·1


Rubery Hill
792
17·6


Burghill
608
8·9


Barnsley Hall
611
20·5


Powick
896
18·4


Central
988
42·6


Shelton
903
15·1


St. Georges
964
24·4


St. Matthews
999
24·7


St. Edwards
1,066
33·5


Hollymoor
634
11·5


Highcroft Hall
*1,227
*26·8


* Overcrowding during daytime only.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Health how much of the special £1 million, allocated for spending by March, 1955, on increasing accommodation in mental hospitals, has been approved for spending on actual capital projects.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Building work estimated to cost a little under £1·4 million in all has been authorised, and I expect that expenditure of about £950,000 will be incurred in the current financial year.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Health what part of the special £1 million, allocated for spending on extra accommodation in mental hospitals, has


been allocated to the Birmingham region; what part of this quota has now been approved for spending on capital projects, and at which hospitals; and for how long further projects have been under consideration by his Department.

Mr. Iain Macleod: It was originally contemplated that up to £90,000 of this special allocation might be spent in the Birmingham Region in 1954–55 but so far only one scheme, at Chelmsley Hospital, Marston Green, has been authorised, at a tendered cost of just under £35,000. Sketch plans for two other schemes were submitted early in January but the preparation of working drawings and bills of quantities for these has not yet been completed.

Mr. Chapman: How can the Minister say that there is any sense of urgency in his Department when, faced with the figures which he has been giving us about mental hospital overcrowding in Birmingham, schemes to alleviate the position have been in his Department since January? When will we get provision at Hollymoor Hospital, for example, to build more accommodation?

Mr. Macleod: The two other hospitals referred to, which have not yet been approved, are Stallington Hall and Central Hospital, Hatton. I cannot accept the implications of what the hon. Member says. There have been delays, which I do not like, but I could not accept responsibility for my Department for them. I would, however, like to make this clear to the Birmingham Region: the fact that only a certain amount of what we call the "mental million" allocation to Birmingham will be spent this year does not mean that Birmingham will lose this provision. It merely means that it will be extended into the next financial year. These schemes will still be done.

Mr. K. Robinson: How much of the next year's "mental million" will be available for new schemes over and above the continuation of the schemes authorised during the coming year?

Mr. Macleod: I think that nearly all of it will be taken up with the continuation of schemes, but perhaps the hon. Member had better put down a Question and I will give him details.

Geriatric Units

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Health how many geriatric units are now established; how many beds are provided; and what is the approximate number of patients treated annually.

Mr. Iain Macleod: According to the latest available information, there are 59 such units for active treatment. These account for 20,500 of the total of 53,871 beds normally available for the chronic sick. I have no separate information as to the number of patients treated annually in these units, but in the year ended 31st December, 1953, 101,081 patients were treated in beds allocated to the chronic sick.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Can my right hon. Friend say how much progress in the provision of these units is likely to be made next year and in the next few years?

Mr. Macleod: That question must be put down. We have a number of plans in contemplation in this field.

Sheffield Region (Financial Allocation)

Mr. Mason: asked the Minister of Health the annual financial allocation to the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board during the years 1948 to 1953, giving the separate yearly allocations; how much was spent each year; and what amount Barnsley Hospital Management Committee received during each of these years, specifying particularly the money actually spent.

Mr. Iain Macleod: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Mason: What amount of the total figure allocated to the Sheffield Regional Board over the period in question has been left unexpended, and for what reason?

Mr. Macleod: No less than five different years are involved, each of which appears, at a quick glance, to have some sort of underspending, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the hon. Member had better study the figures—about 30 are given—and put down another Question if he is not satisfied.

Following is the answer:

MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE

During the years 1948–49 to 1952–53 the annual allocations to the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board to meet hospital running costs and the Board's actual expenditure were as follows:—




1948–49
1949–50
1950–51
1951–52
1952–53




£
£
£
£
£


Sheffield R.H.B.


Allocation
…
7,883,415
13,046,771
13,327,677
14,514,282
16,282,000


Actual Expenditure
…
8,187,339
13,045,247
12,791,508
14,032,902
15,414,061

In the case of Barnsley Hospital Management Committee the corresponding figures, included in the above totals, were:—




1948–49
1949–50
1950–51
1951–52
1952–53




£
£
£
£
£


Barnsley H.M.C.


Allocation
…
160,887
272,826
325,914
352,970
377,145


Actual Expenditure
…
170,827
267,504
300,413
347,265
350,224

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

The annual allocations to Sheffield Regional Hospital Board for capital purposes in each of the years 1948–49 to 1952–53 and the Board's actual expenditure were as follows:—




1948–49
1949–50
1950–51
1951–52
1952–53




£
£
£
£
£


Sheffield R.H.B.


Allocation
…
684,130
702,000
601,352
643,126
548,479


Actual Expenditure
…
307,706
588,115
457,831
578,281
495,387

The expenditure by the Board in respect of hospitals controlled by the Barnsley Hospital Management Committee and included above, was:—




1948–49
1949–50
1950–51
1951–52
1952–53




£
£
£
£
£




799
14,227
10,570
12,696
3,207

Cypriot Woman (Medical Attention)

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Health why Thallisthene Tsangaridou, now deceased, was not granted medical attention under the National Health Service.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Treatment could have been provided under the National Health Service, but immediate admission cannot of course be guaranteed.

Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the operation in question was carried out by the generosity of a professional who was involved and that a rather unpleasant reaction is felt by some people that this Cypriot, for whom we are responsible, did not have immediate attention or did not take her place in the normal queue of people at the hospitals and was, in fact, refused admission under the National Health Service?

Mr. Macleod: The position is not quite like that; perhaps I can make it clear. If people are in this country, either temporarily or permanently, they

have a right to the benefits of the National Health Service, but, naturally, their cases must then be considered in the ordinary list of priority with people in this country. Obviously, that is only fair and right. There would have been a short waiting period of about three weeks for this particular illness, which was a rare liver disease. The girl, most unhappily, died under the operation. But I think that my policy in this matter is clear: that people in this country, from wherever they come, do get the benefits of the National Health Service, but that special arrangements for priority admission cannot be made.

Mr. Snow: Was this lady refused treatment under the National Health Service, or was that a mistake in the newspaper reports?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think she was ever refused. There was a misunderstanding at Hammersmith about the policy which I have just enunciated, and I hope that what I have said will make it clear.

Mr. Snow: Thank you.

Orthopaedic Cases, Burton-on-Trent

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Health if he will try to expedite the admission to hospital of Mrs. Rose Hinds, of Edingale, Staffordshire, who has been on the emergency list for over three months; and if he will assist the Burton-on-Trent Hospital Management Committee to make available more beds for female orthopaedic cases, of which Mrs. Hinds is one example.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Snow: May I ask the Minister whether his medical advice is that the allocation of beds for this type of case, in beds provided by this particular group of hospitals, is adequate or fair relative to the total number of beds available?

Mr. Macleod: In the last few minutes I have seen a report on which I will base my letter to the hon. Member. There is certainly a considerable need for improvement, which I think we may be able to meet by transferring some beds for gynaecological treatment from Burton-on-Trent to another hospital and, therefore, making more room for the speciality which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Snow: Thank you.

Slough and Eton

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to provide a new hospital to serve the district of Slough and Eton.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Progress has been made towards securing a site but I still cannot say when it will be possible for building to start.

Mr. Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman speed up these plans? Is he aware that in the three hospitals for Windsor, Upton and Cliveden there is now a waiting list of 1,500, that several people have been waiting for months, and that the beds occupied now reach 89 per cent.? Is he aware that 17,000 more people are now coming into this district on the London County Council estates?

Mr. Macleod: I am aware of many of those facts and, since the hon. Member draws my attention to it, I will look particularly at the waiting list. But this is a project within the competence for arranging priorities of the North-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board and, therefore, must compete with other projects equally desirable in that area—for example, to take an obvious instance, the new hospital in the Welwyn-Hatfield area. But I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Mason: What time is taken between the approval in principle of plans submitted by regional hospital boards and the actual starting of new schemes?

Mr. Macleod: Any time that I stated would be completely misleading. It depends entirely on the stage that a particular project has reached and its priority in the plans of the regional hospital board.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

National Dried Milk (Infant Feeding)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that medical officers have expressed concern regarding undernourishment of infants fed on National Dried milk, due to the inadequate feed amounts prescribed on the tins: and if he will take steps to have the prescribed amounts altered to bring them up to the requirements of the British babies of today.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am aware of the recent study on artificial feeding of infants in Aberdeen and, with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Food and Secretary of State for Scotland, am now considering the results. But it should be realised that the feeding tables issued with National Dried Milk are designed only to guide the mother until she can consult a doctor or clinic as she is expressly advised to do before starting artificial feeding or if the baby is not thriving.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the deficiency is felt about 3 o'clock in the morning when the babies start crying, and that this is hardly the time to seek out Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Scotland and all the


other "high nobs"? Cannot we have more approximate amounts given on the tins? Often an infant can take twice the amount stated.

Mr. Macleod: I understand the point which the hon. Lady has made, and I am very grateful to her for putting down this Question, which I think will help. The point, I understand, it that the amounts suggested are put down so that there will not be over-feeding when a new food is given, and the advice always given is that the mother should consult as soon as possible a doctor or the clinic.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: It is surely unlikely that the sensible mothers of Scotland will wait until three o'clock in the morning before looking at the directions on the tin?

Immigrants (Tuberculosis)

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce some control to see that immigrant workers are free from infectious tuberculosis when they enter this country as recommended in the report of the Central Health Services Council for 1953.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 6th May to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson).

WESTERN EUROPEAN DEFENCE (SOVIET NOTE)

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State whether he has any statement to make on the latest Soviet Note.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Anthony Eden): Yes, Sir. The Soviet Note has only just been received and is being studied. Our first duty is to consult our allies and other interested Powers.
Subject to such consultation, my preliminary reading of the Soviet Note is that it contains no proposals which have not been put forward before, except the proposal of the date of 29th November for a general European conference.
The Soviet Note is openly and explicitly directed against the ratification of the Paris Agreements. As the House knows, it is Her Majesty's Government's

view that our first task is to ratify these Agreements and to put them into force. We must not let ourselves be deflected.
As I said in this House on 25th October:
If we can bring about stability and a common purpose in the West, we shall have established the essential basis on which we can seek an understanding with the East."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th Oct., 1954; Vol. 531, c. 1606.]

Mr. Attlee: While agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman that ratification should go forward, I take it that the right hon. Gentleman would then be in favour, pari passu, of going ahead with full talks on the broad questions raised in the Soviet Note.

Sir A. Eden: I know the right hon. Gentleman would agree that we must move in these matters in close consultation with our allies. I have made it plain from the quotation that I gave that the first stage is ratification by all the countries concerned, so that our plans may be brought to fruition. From that moment a new situation opens up, and Her Majesty's Government would not exclude the possibility of further discussion.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the Foreign Secretary put it to the Russian Government that if they help us more over disarmament inspection and control we may be able to consider security questions in a new light?

Sir A. Eden: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but that would not be the only area in which I should like a little help. I would like some help, for example, in securing an Austrian treaty, which should have been concluded long ago.

Mr. Wyatt: Will the Foreign Secretary, in his reply, make it clear that he does not think the idea of a European collective security pact is necessarily inconsistent with the ratification of the Berlin and Paris Agreements? Would he not also agree that it would be similar to his own idea of a Locarno Pact applied to Europe? If that satisfied the Soviet Union, might we not as well give it to them?

Sir A. Eden: I would not follow the hon. Gentleman in the argument he has been using about Mr. Molotov's idea of


a pact. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and Mr. Molotov are as close as perhaps he thinks they are. All I would add on this matter is that I have not given the considered views of Her Majesty's Government. I could not. But I thought it was right to give the House our preliminary reaction. Of course, considered views can only follow consultation with our allies.

Mr. Chetwynd: Does the right hon. Gentleman rule out simultaneous moves towards ratification and negotiation?

Sir A. Eden: We have made it clear that ratification must now proceed and that that is a step that must be completed before anything else can be completed.

Mr. Harold Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that that no approach by the U.S.S.R. will be considered by Her Majesty's Government or by her allies until well into the spring when ratification will take place'? May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to agree, when the Government have had time seriously to consider this Note, with Lord Samuel, who said in another place that this may not be a trap but a genuine effort to get world peace?

Sir A. Eden: Any proposal made to us by a foreign Government will be considered. We have never closed the door and we are in no circumstances closing it now. This Soviet Note is clearly directed against the ratification of these Agreements, and it is the Government's policy to ratify them as soon as possible. We cannot be diverted from that task, and I am sure the House will not wish us to be diverted.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this further as we are to have two days' discussion on it this week.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Pests Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]

CIVIL AVIATION

3.35 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Reports and Accounts of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways Corporation for the year ended 31st March, 1954.
It is eight months since we last discussed civil aviation, and although today, more than ever, the struggle for Parliamentary time grows keener, the House never fails to find opportunities of discussing matters which arouse real controversy or general public concern.
The problems of the civil air transport industry are many and complex, but, broadly speaking, I think that the industry is settling down to a pattern of orderly development, and I believe it is the general desire of hon. Members on both sides of the House, as, indeed, it is of those who are actually engaged in the industry, that civil aviation should, as far as possible, be kept well away from the cauldron of party political strife.
I do not suggest for a moment that there is not wide variety of topics for discussion and if, therefore, I make what I might call a rather tight circuit myself, it is to facilitate the general traffic and certainly not because of any shortage of fuel. In the general field of policy which affects the operations of the airways corporations, the Pacific agreements to which I referred last year have now been endorsed by all the Governments concerned.
British Commonwealth Pacific Airways has been wound up and Quantas is already operating the Pacific routes with Super-Constellations. B.O.A.C. intends to extend its services to San Francisco as soon as the aircraft programme allows. Then the round-the-world partnership of these two great Commonwealth airlines will be complete.
Another event of importance has been the conference which was held at Strasbourg, last April, on air transport development within Europe. The United Kingdom succeeded on that occasion in persuading the conference to adopt two important resolutions. One of these offers


greater freedom for the development of air freight enabling air freighters, in effect, to engage on regular tramping operations and the other is designed partially to free the field of charter operations from impediments which, up to now, have prevented its full development. These are important landmarks in air transport progress, a field in which one must be constantly alert to make adjustments to meet changing situations.
The overall expansion of air transport is, I think, clearly reflected in the results of the work of the Air Transport Advisory Council. During the year under review this council dealt with 118 applications, 13 from the corporations and 104 from independent operators. It recommended 75 to my right hon. Friend for approval. I think that this represents an accomplishment of no mean task, and I believe the House will want to join me in a warm expression of tribute and congratulation to Lord Terrington and his colleagues.
Turning to the reports of the corporations themselves, perhaps the most encouraging common feature is the reduction in operating costs, by 6·1 per cent. in the case of B.E.A. and 2·9 per cent. in the case of B.O.A.C. In both cases these reductions reflect increased efficiency and improving productivity.
One further point of considerable interest in connection with the independent operators is mentioned in the penultimate paragraph of the B.O.A.C. report, and also on page 19, which records the collaboration between the corporation and two independent companies and the willingness to pursue such a policy in future in suitable circumstances. My right hon. Friend warmly welcomes every indication of a genuine desire for co-operation between the two sections of the industry. This will surely be in the best interests of the development of British civil aviation as a whole. It may even be that such a policy will prove worthy of consideration by B.E.A. in solving some of the problems inherent in its particular type of operations.
The measure of the financial success of B.O.A.C. is well illustrated by the fact that in spite of problems resulting from the withdrawal of Comets from service, it has not asked for any Exchequer grant, and this is for the third year running. All, I know, will wish the Corporation

well as the leading British operator on the great routes that link the Continents. On the other hand, the continuing deficit of B.E.A. and the future prospects of that corporation are the subject of constant consideration by Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, and by my right hon. Friend, who is confident that the efforts of the board, and the sustained energy of everyone within that organisation, will go a long way to reducing the present deficit.
It may at first sight appear to some paradoxical that with the introduction of the Viscount and the Elizabethan, and a general expansion of traffic, overall losses have not diminished. There is no doubt, however, that the effect of the indiscriminate introduction of tourist fares, for which the International Air Transport Association and not B.E.A. was responsible, was misjudged, at any rate as far as Europe was concerned. At I.A.T.A.'s last conference some of these fares were increased, and it estimated that this will produce for B.E.A. an annual increase in revenue of about £400,000.
Then, again, this corporation has to face the special problems of all short-haul operators. Although I do not think that we should regard the distance of 260 miles mentioned on page 13 of the report as having any magical significance, the costs of short-haul operations are certainly higher, and the sectors of less than that distance, on all of which B.E.A. lose money, are in the majority. The internal routes, north of London, account for much of this loss. Because my right hon. Friend has a clear duty to use his best endeavours to relieve the taxpayer at the earliest possible moment of this substantial burden, he will, of course, continue to examine most carefully any practicable plans to this end.
On page 14 of the B.E.A. report the Corporation claims that the Government do not do all they might to help the Corporation to eliminate its deficit. This complaint stems from dislike of Exchequer assistance by means of a grant related to its estimates of overall loss. The corporation regards the subsidy of losses in this way as damaging to its prestige with the public and with other operators and, particularly, to staff morale. I understand this feeling, which, I know, is held very strongly by Lord Douglas and his board. However, to minimise such effects, if possible, let it be clearly known again that Parliament


deliberately chose, when passing the 1946 Act, to finance the airways corporations by direct Exchequer grants related to their whole activities, in preference to special subsidies, concealed or otherwise.
British European Airways have a right to be proud of, and congratulated on, two special scores. As is pointed out in the report, it has never yet bought a new aeroplane from other than the British aircraft industry; secondly, having flown 161,290 revenue hours throughout the year under review, during which 214,488 take-offs and landings were made in the course of flying about 24 million aircraft miles, it achieved a 100 per cent. safety record.
The long-term future of B.E.A., and, indeed, of all short-haul air traffic, is closely connected with the development of the helicopter. This presents a highly complicated problem and I have tried, at the request of my right hon. Friend, to make a special study of this problem. It divides into two fundamental problems: the production of the right type of commercial machines and the development of the best landing spaces to serve our great cities.
In my opinion, the most important use of these machines in the civil field will be as inter-city hoppers or as "air buses" operating direct from one centre of population to the centre of another. I was supported in this idea by a recent visit which I paid in the company of Lord Douglas to Belgium. There, we studied the Sabena network and their techniques, and we got considerable benefit from full and frank discussions with their senior executives. The development of the helicopter itself is, of course, a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Supply, but I can assure the House that there is the closest co-ordination between all interested Departments.
Now may I say one word about this from the point of view of the operators. The introduction of this new means of transport depends primarily on the good will of the city dwellers themselves. Ultimately, it must rely on whether or not the general public are prepared to support it. Therefore I regard the major problem of reducing the noise in these machines as of an importance equal to their performance. Much effort and research is going into this problem, but it is one which cannot I think, figure too prominently in the minds and plans of

manufacturers, especially with the approach of the twin-engine helicopter and, indeed, the use of the jet engine in helicopters.
Although a most careful study is being made of the characteristics and requirements of permanent air stops to serve our cities and, in particular, London, no final decision can be made until we have more information of the behaviour and landing and take-off characteristics of twin-engine machines. One thing we do know is that these installations will be exceedingly costly. While, therefore, we have to be sure of what will finally be required, my right hon. Friend will see that the eventual introduction of scheduled services is not delayed for the want of landing areas.
Meanwhile, progress has been made. My right hon. Friend who is now the Colonial Secretary considerably relaxed the former regulations and restrictions governing helicopter flights over and into the centre of London and, in co-operation with the London County Council, a temporary air stop on the South Bank is now available for any helicopter wishing to come into the centre of London. It is from there that B.E.A. will start in the spring of next year to operate experimental scheduled services to and from London Airport. The S.55 single-engine helicopter will be used, and the first of these machines was delivered recently. They will be fitted with floats.
This service, which will, of course, be subsidised, is not as is widely believed simply intended to speed passengers to and from London Airport. This route has been chosen so that we can gain important information with respect to operations into and out of both city centres and busy international airports. I believe that this will be the biggest single step forward so far taken in the development of United Kingdom helicopter operations.

Mr. John Rankin: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many passengers will be carried in each machine?

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: And what is the fare?

Mr. Profumo: The question of the fare and the number of passengers carried is a matter for the operators and it would be wrong for me to prejudge their final


decision in this matter. However, I can say that the fare will be roughly 30s., the same as from London to Eastleigh, and four passengers will be carried. There will be a weight penalty with regard to the carrying of floats, which Lord Douglas thinks is important in case helicopters should have to come down in the River Thames.
Of even greater importance than the linking by air of our own great cities is the development of our air links within the Empire. This is proceeding apace. Year by year the Commonwealth family is brought a little closer together in time. The majority of the Colonies, Protectorates and British Protected States are linked with the United Kingdom, either directly or indirectly, by trunk route air services operated by the United Kingdom air corporations. In so far as the over-sea administrations may be unable for economic reasons to embark on the necessary scale of development to meet United Kingdom trunk route aviation requirements, the United Kingdom Government make financial contributions to the construction or development of aerodromes and associated facilities in these oversea territories where such development is judged to be entirely beyond local or regional requirements.
All this expansion in aviation makes it imperative to ensure a steady flow of young men of the highest calibre who are prepared to make careers as pilots in civil air transport both in the corporations and also in the independent companies. At this stage, I simply want to reassure the House that my right hon. Friend has the matter very much in mind and is engaged in a close and detailed study of the problem with the Departments concerned. The matter is not easy to resolve, but as soon as it becomes possible my right hon. Friend will announce to the House his conclusions.
No survey of our air transport industry today would be complete without reference to the great national disaster which we have suffered as a result of the Comet tragedies. From time to time in the glorious pioneering history of our island similar catastrophies have smitten us but never, I venture to say, with greater force or with wider repercussions. Nevertheless, calamity has never before shattered our spirit of enterprise. B.O.A.C., which, in

pursuance of one of its chief responsibilities, has done a great national service in pioneering the world's first civil jet airlines—an all-British production—has suffered a serious set-back and now faces big problems. Grave indeed are the problems which face the British aircraft industry.
After years of research, invention, and craftsmanship, the products of the British aircraft industry are now on the threshold of world supremacy, both in the hands of our national flag-carriers and, indeed, in the export markets. Naturally enough, there are—scattered around all over the world—those who, for commercial reasons cannot be expected to view these prospects with relish. It seems, therefore, immensely important that we here at home must at all costs avoid even inadvertently—to use a colloquialism—giving a dog a bad name ourselves.
I venture to remind the House that this is not a matter which touches only those who travel by air. On the success of the British aircraft industry depends to a very considerable degree national prestige, employment, foreign currency and with that, of course, our whole standard of living. Her Majesty's Government have a fundamental faith in the future of this great industry and believe that with the resolution and determination of all concerned we shall emerge from these present threatening clouds and reap the rewards of our pioneering effort and enterprise.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. F. Beswick: I should like to thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the very great economy of time which he has shown in making his speech today. Although we rather regret that he has not given a little more information about the future, we thank him for what he has told us about the past. I recognise that it is the past which we are discussing on the Annual Reports of the corporations but there are certain important question of the future about which we would have appreciated more detailed information.
My only other qualification to the pleasure which I should like to express to the hon. Gentleman is that the fact that he has spoken first has deprived me of the privilege of congratulating the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on his first speech in a debate on civil aviation. I have no doubt that, as the


right hon. Gentleman has turned from the Treasury and taxation to surface transport matters so ably, he will show himself just as much at home in the air when, as I presume he will, he winds up the debate this evening.
The reports of the two socially owned air transport organisations of the country show, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, a record of enterprise and achievement of which the nation can be proud. No other industry excels this for enthusiasm and, equally, no other encounters greater problems. Nowhere in the last year has there been shown, in any field of British endeavour, greater courage and ability in meeting problems than has been displayed by those who are responsible for the two corporations. One also ought to say that nowhere else is greater competition met than by these two British nationally-owned corporations, a fact which, as is pointed out in the B.O.A.C. report, marks the industry out from the rest of Britain's nationalised undertakings.
In these reports there is a wealth of information for students of affairs on all manner of detailed items. For example, I see that last year the average distance flown by each B.O.A.C. passenger was 3,143 miles. That in itself is an indication not only of the world-wide nature of our Commonwealth and colonial affairs but, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, of our ability to link them up.
I also note that B.E.A., a modern airline, covers 1,415,000 bus miles in London's streets. I am sure that a lesson is to be learned from that, especially with regard to the development of helicopters. There is also some information in one of the reports about providing a suitable all-the-year-round airport within the Sheikhdom of Kuwait. We all see the necessity for unrestricted air communication with that area, but I should like to have information, either in the debate or later, about the responsibility which the Minister has for the provision of that airport. Bearing in mind the vast sums of money which are extracted in oil from that part of the world, the financing of this project is a matter about which we should be told.
While I am on the subject of airfields I should like to say something about Gatwick, as I was quoted in an earlier debate as supporting the project. The

fact is that I was never enthusiastic about that site. My doubts were based upon the close limitations on the development of an airport there. If we could not expand there and it would not be possible to use the proposed facilities to the maximum, it seemed to me very doubtful whether we should spend big sums of public money on the initial development—if this could be avoided. But this is the whole point.
I have read some criticism of the allegedly bureaucratic civil servants planning this airport oblivious both to local feeling and to the possibility of alternative sites. As one who took a very close interest in this matter, I must say that those criticisms are absolutely unfounded. There was a most painstaking and careful search for alternatives. I remember one meeting when the floor of my office was covered with large-scale maps and how I was told that the possible sites had been covered by car and on foot and surveys had been made by air in search of a possible alternative. It seems to me that those who still object to the Gatwick proposals ought to be told that there is still to be shown an alternative site within acceptable radius of London which will meet all the requirements and will not cause as much or more local disturbance.
Turning to the individual reports and taking B.E.A. first, I should like to join immediately with the Parliamentary Secretary in paying tribute to the 100 per cent. safety record of that corporation. Its record for safety, plus its year's achievements in regularity and punctuality does set a seal upon its overall operational and technical achievement. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that all concerned are entitled to the greatest credit.
B.E.A., on the basis of this report, is beyond criticism in all respects save one and that seems to me possibly the most important. I refer, of course, to the financial position. Financially, the position is disturbing. Not only is a deficit of £1,773,000 high, but it is higher than the £1,400,000 of last year and very much higher than three or four years ago. We are entitled to ask the Government what they propose to do about it. The report itself, despite the facts put forward and the interpretation given by the Parliamentary Secretary, is not convincing on this point. One explanation offered is that


amortisation charges are so much heavier. Of course, if one buys so many new aircraft with which to provide more capacity, more efficiently, amortisation services are bound to go up.
Another proffered explanation is that revenue rates are down. But if one reduces fares and thus secures an increased number of passengers—a fact which is pointed out in the first paragraph of the report—one cannot easily complain. I know it is said—the Parliamentary Secretary repeated it—that the reduction of fares is the result of an I.A.T.A. decision, but B.E.A. is an influential member of I.A.T.A. In any case, I.A.T.A. decisions do not affect the domestic fares structure and we are told elsewhere that it is in that field that the greatest losses are made.
The point is later painfully laboured about the essential high cost of short-haul operations, but if such a service is so much more costly to provide, people should pay more for it. If the short-haul passenger will not pay anything approaching an economic price for the advantage of flying, we must consider carefully whether it is right to lure him away from trains and buses by a subsidised air ticket. That seems to me a point which can best be examined by a Ministry with responsibility for both surface and air transport.
When we consider these matters we come back to the proposition that the most comprehensive and, in the last resort, conclusive measurement of airline efficiency must be the financial result at the end of the year. Many other indices and formulae have been devised. There are capacity ton miles offered—a figure comparatively easily improved simply by putting new aircraft on the routes. There is the figure of passengers carried, but, as we have seen, that can be boosted by reducing the fares below economic levels. Output per ton mile per person employed is a favourite formula but can be rendered quite irrelevant by contracting work out and enjoying the result of labour not on one's work lists.
Costs per load ton mile is generally regarded as the best test. Here, B.E.A. is able to show a commendable reduction of 6·1 per cent. down to 63·8 pence. But that cannot be the whole story, for if an operator brings in the most efficient

machines, irrespective of mounting amortisation charges, and puts more passengers in them through reduced fares—which inevitably reduces revenue rates—then certainly cost per passenger or ton mile will come down, but the financial deficit will possibly go up. That, apparently, has happened in this case. Therefore, I say that the financial yardstick is ultimately more important than the others and no amount of figure juggling should deceive us.
Of course, some services never make any profit but can be both efficient and essential. Hon. Members behind me might well point to the National Health Service as an example. We should make up our minds whether we mean our air services to be primarily commercial or social services. If we say, as we did in the Civil Aviation Act, that after 10 years they should be financially self-supporting taking one year with another, we must apply the most reliable commercial tests. But in that case, to be fair to B.E.A., it has an unanswerable case for some special revenue payments for uneconomic services provided for social reasons. I am thinking in particular of some of the Scottish services.

Mr. J. Grimond: I agree with the solution of the hon. Member if those services are uneconomic, but I do not want it to be permanently on the record that they are all necessarily uneconomic now, or always will be so. I think that in the Orkney and Shetland services there has been a great increase in traffic and there is a good chance of their paying.

Mr. Beswick: The opinion of the hon. Member is of great interest, but my point is that the decision should be made by the Minister as to whether these services are supposedly commercial and economic or whether they are social services. If they are the latter, I think that a special deficiency payment should be made if that is the conclusion arrived at. We have had no enlightenment on this matter from the Parliamentary Secretary.
There is one other financial point I wish to make. When we last had a discussion about the borrowing powers of B.E.A. I asked some questions about the relation of loan capital to turnover. We see in the B.E.A. report that the loan


capital stood at £18,650,000 on 31st March and revenue for the year ending on that date was less than £15 million. That seems to be quite out of proportion. I do not know how many hon. Members having anything to do with business would be satisfied with a ratio of that kind. It compares very unfavourably with all the figures I have been able to get for other airlines. Maybe the Minister has been able to satisfy himself that the potential traffic expansion is so great that the new fleet now operating or already bought, plus the huge new engineering facilities, can be economically justified, but if he is so satisfied we should be told. We have had no guidance as to the thinking of the Minister on this point either.
If the traffic potential within the allotted responsibility of B.E.A. is not there, what is the Minister doing about it? Is he proposing to extend the area over which these new aircraft and engineering facilities can be used? If not, what kind of solution has he in mind? After all, by the end of 1956 a decision has to be made because the provision of subsidies comes to an end then. By now there ought to be some kind of solution forming in the mind of the Minister. Although, in my view, he is not fitted by his political philosophy for leading social enterprise, nevertheless this kind of problem, after his Treasury training, is one which he ought to enjoy.
If the financial yardstick is applied to the B.O.A.C. report, all that is left to us is to congratulate the corporation on the results it has been able to show. Not only has it not asked for a subsidy, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, but it has actually turned out a really handsome profit. Whether judged against the background of the position four years ago, or in the light of the extreme setback which the Comet accidents have meant during the year under review, the final figures reflect spendidly on the corporation and all who worked for it. I agree that the courage and resource shown in redeploying available aircraft have absorbed the shock of the first year and have been magnificent. I understand that this year it is fighting back and not only retaining traffic but even winning additional traffic. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that the prospects for the future of the corporation seem very uncertain indeed, through

no fault at all of those responsible for the direction of its affairs.
Before going on to deal with the future, I wish to ask one or two questions about aspects of present policy. Undoubtedly, both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. could have done better had they been permitted by the Minister to tender for long-term trooping contracts. Representations were made by both corporations against this unjustifiable, and indeed wasteful, prohibition. In paragraph 68 of the B.O.A.C. report we find that it was told by the Minister that it was "politically impossible" for the Government to grant them long-term trooping contracts. We should have an explanation of that.
A statement that it was "technically impossible," or "economically undesirable" might be accepted, but not "politically impossible." Why should it be "politically impossible" to use national assets to the best advantage? Why should it be "politically impossible" to allow the corporation to bid for these contracts if it can offer a better and a safer ride than its competitors? 
Then there is the question of freighting——

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman referred to B.O.A.C. and trooping contracts. One understands that B.O.A.C. is already short of aircrew. Would it have been even possible for the corporation to have done trooping work——

Mr. James Callaghan: The report says, "politically impossible."

Air Commodore Harvey: I am talking about the facts as I know them. If there is a shortage of aircrew to carry out the existing work, how could the corporation carry out additional freighting?

Mr. Beswick: Had it been said that B.O.A.C. was unable to accept long-term trooping contracts because of a shortage of aircrew we could have accepted the position. But the corporation says that it was not because of any shortage of aircrew. This is the actual report of the corporation, and it says that the corporation was told by the Minister that it was "politically impossible."

Mr. Callaghan: Shame.

Mr. Beswick: Then there is the question of freighting. The former Minister said that he considered freight to be primarily a matter for the private operator. We would like to know from the present Minister whether he proposes to keep up this quite arbitrary and economically indefensible division between private and public enterprise. Reference was made to the agreements which B.O.A.C. had concluded with some of these private companies within the framework of the former Minister's policy—or perhaps I ought to say the former Minister's instructions. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he warmly welcomed——

Mr. Prolumo: I understood the hon. Gentleman to refer to the "instructions" of the former Minister. I must make it quite clear that it was a commercial decision taken by the two companies concerned and not on the instructions of the former Minister. We must get these things clear.

Mr. Beswick: If we are to get this absolutely accurately in detail, the undertakings given by the chairmen were given after they had been summoned to the Minister's office and after the matter had been discussed with him. Whether they can change their minds completely in the course of a day I do not know, but I doubt it.

Air Commodore Harvey: How does the hon. Member know?

Mr. Callaghan: Does the hon. and gallant Member deny it?

Mr. Beswick: I was talking about the agreements which the Parliamentary Secretary said he warmly welcomed. I wish to ask the Minister whether we can be told a little more about those agreements? What is their duration? What other services are the corporations providing for their competitors, other than that of collecting business on an agency basis? I believe that we should be given more information about the precise nature of these agreements which the Parliamentary Secretary has said he warmly welcomes.
It is when we consider these complications in the affairs of the corporations—I have not the time to go into the theory about the three-tier structure which prevents B.O.A.C. from reducing the

fares on its tourist service to compete with the colonial coach services—that we realise that there are great difficulties in the forward planning of the corporations. We have to bear this in mind when considering their obligations in the matter of the purchase of aircraft.
The Comet inquiry is still proceeding, and it is not for me to say anything about it, except that I agree with what Lord Brabazon said the other day in his evidence. There was a supreme effort made by brilliant men to provide Britain and the world with an aircraft years ahead of its competitors. The initial bid has not succeeded, but I do not think it is up to any of us to criticise those who made that bid. However, there are some obvious consequential questions which need to be answered.
B.O.A.C. has put £5 million into the Comet I. It still has over £4 million worth of Comet aircraft, which, we understand, it cannot now use. Who is to bear that loss? I will say nothing at all about the £4½ million which is locked up as progress payments on the Comet II. We must bear in mind that about 20 per cent. of the planned capacity of the corporation was bound up with the Comet orders.
It is clearly against this background that the corporation has to look at its other British purchase, the Bristol Britannia. If anything went wrong with that machine the competitive position of the corporations would be hopeless. If anyone doubts that statement he has only to look at the way in which it was possible to attract traffic by the use of the Viscount aircraft against competitors using older machines.
I do not consider that this House is a suitable place in which to discuss the technical merits of individual aircraft, but there are some very important questions of general policy which I think we must consider. For years everyone has been talking of Britain's lead in civil aircraft, and now we have our biggest national airline operator considering the purchase of American machines, or, at any rate. American airframes. This proposal has undoubtedly come as a great shock. Until recently B.O.A.C. was planning to move over entirely to the British product. I speak with no close knowledge but I think that its commitments, even now, must be about £50 million. The Chairman of B.O.A.C.


was widely hailed as Britain's best salesman for British aircraft.
The very fact that the corporation has felt it necessary to turn to America must cause the British public to ask some very pertinent questions. Why has B.O.A.C. changed? Is the corporation justified in having any doubts at all about the capacity of the British aircraft industry to deliver the goods? I do not say this with any great relish, but I think we should be foolish not to recognise that there are some reasons for doubt.
For example, there are the disappointments and delays over helicopter development which were well ventilated in another place only two weeks ago. There have been serious delays in the delivery of military aircraft. I understand that a visiting Congressional committee even went so far as to say that certain of our latest swept-back fighters would be obsolescent by the time they reached the squadrons. A Select Committee of this House was expressing anxieties well over a year ago. When they asked why it took us so much longer than the Russians to get our prototypes into production, the reply from Air Marshal Sir John Boothman, Controller of Supplies (Air) was:
I think you can quote this: that if I had a few million slave labourers I might do quite a bit.
That reply is not good enough. We are entitled to a much more serious explanation of the present position.
If we look at the civil aircraft record it is difficult to claim an uninterrupted line of successes. The Tudor ended in tragedy. The Hermes was uneconomic. The Princesses, because of the failure of the early Proteus engines, are now cocooned. The Ambassador, for some reason, was not developed by the manufacturers. The Brabazons were sold for scrap. And the Comet is now the subject of an inquiry.
Against that, we have had the triumph of the Vickers Company, and there have been successes like the Bristol Freighter and the de Havilland Dove.
I understand that Handley Page, with which the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) is connected, has started selling a private venture replacement for the DC 3, and we all wish that well. But even with those successes in mind I think there is room

for doubt whether everything is as it should be in the aircraft manufacturing industry.
It is not easy to criticise the products of one's own country, and I hope that no one will suggest that I get any pleasure from it, but we have a duty to ask some questions in view of the enormous sums of public money which have been sunk in this industry. I doubt very much whether the public fully appreciates the magnitude of some of the expenditure involved in capital assistance, research and test facilities, development contracts and prototype orders.
Are we getting the best possible return for money spent? Are our total national resources deployed to the best advantage? Is the highly trained personnel spread to thinly over the good firms and the not so good? Is Government assistance, either because of its volume or the manner in which it is given, shielding the less efficient from some of the winds of competition?
It will be for the Minister to give the final word about the possible purchase of some American machines for B.O.A.C., and it will be a very serious decision indeed. No one could expect the British manufacturers to go out into the world markets and sell their products to foreign buyers if our own corporations do not buy them. We must recognise that.
The Minister will have to give his decision on these matters, but I ask him to go even further. I ask him whether he will suggest to his colleagues that what we need now is a high-level, independent and thorough inquiry into the whole setup of our manufacturing industry and of the Governmental structure that surrounds it. We ought to know how much we are spending, and we ought to have an answer to some of the questions which I have tried to pose to the Minister.
As for the particular problem which immediately stimulates all this questioning, namely, the alleged doubts about the Bristol Britannia, I would put this to the Minister. Would it not be possible to do more to bring forward this machine in delivery time and to get its performances proven as quickly as possible? I see that the Bristol Company has said that intensive development is now proceeding, but I noticed that in another place Lord Brabazon said that even its best friends would not accuse that company of being in a hurry.
I wonder whether the effort it is making is as intensive as the effort with which Lord Mountbatten conducted the salvage operations of the Comet in the Mediterranean, when 68 per cent. of one of those aircraft was collected from the sea bed. I wonder whether the present work on the Britannia is as intensive as the effort which Sir Arnold Hall put into the Comet tests and the examination of the Comet at Farnborough.
What I have in mind is the possibility of testing more of these engines for more hours a day and of a flying development programme much more ambitious than anything so far contemplated. If the national resources were put behind that as behind the Comet, I think we could catch up with a few months of delay on the Bristol Britannia, and could possibly avoid this rather unpleasant controversy. I must say that if we put that additional national money behind this private venture, then there are some other consequential questions that arise, namely, the relationship as between the private firms and the State.
I have only this to add. I have no doubt at all that in this manufacturing industry of ours there is great ability. Equally, from these two reports, there can be no doubt that we have great ability within our two national airline operators. Some very interesting possibilities lie ahead. There is the possibility of civil developments of the three great V bombers, and I wonder what has been done in the consideration of them. But, after all, they are all some years ahead, and we have to think about the next few years as far as B.O.A.C. is concerned.
We have to ask and the corporation has the right to ask whether it is to be considered as a corporation for the development of British machines irrespective of commercial possibilities, or whether it is expected to turn out each year a financial result as a competitive commercial airline. It is only fair that the Minister should give a clear lead on these points. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has not been able to give us the kind of information on the matter which the House and the country need, and I hope that when the Minister himself winds up the debate he will give us some information on these most important points.

4.25 p.m.

Sir Robert Perkins: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) has spoken today with very great moderation. He has spoken in general terms, and I must say that I find myself in almost complete agreement with him, though there is one matter on which, perhaps, there is room for disagreement. However, when he knows the facts, I am sure that we shall be in complete agreement.
The only point at issue is whether B.O.A.C. should be allowed by the Minister to order now, for delivery in four years' time, either the American-made DC-7D with a Rolls Royce engine, or whether it should buy the English-made Britannia with a Bristol engine. In the past, B.O.A.C. has bought a large number of American machines. It was right to do so at that time because no British machine was available. At the end of the war the corporation had almost entirely to buy American machines. I think it was right to do so then, and I think it is right today, because we all know the tragedy of the Comet. The corporation has had to replace it by buying American machines. Again, I think it is right, because there is no comparable British machine available.
But this proposition is a very different one from that in the past. The proposition now is to order within the next month or two American machines to be delivered in about four years' time, when there will be a comparable British machine available which in every respect promises to be at least equal, and probably superior, to the American product.
There is, I know, some doubt as to when the American machine can be delivered. I have heard it said that it might even be delivered in two years' time. I do not know about that, but I do know, and I accept this, that on 13th October the following statement by B.O.A.C. about the Douglas appeared in the "Financial Times":
This type might be available by 1958 or 1959.
Therefore, as far as we know, both the British and the American machines will be available some time in 1958. At the moment, they are largely hypothetical aircraft. The airframes have not been built and the engines have not been run. They are paper aircraft at the moment,


but, as far as we can tell, both will be good machines.
So confident am I that this Britannia aircraft is a world beater that I would gladly welcome an impartial inquiry into the merits of these two aircraft by the technical experts in the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation and in the Ministry of Supply. I urge the Government, before they allow this order to be placed, to set up some such inquiry so that the facts can be ascertained. I am quite confident that if such an inquiry took place, we should find that the Britannia outclasses the Douglas in payload, range, speed and price, and is approximately equal on delivery dates.
We all know why B.O.A.C. has felt impelled to look at this American machine. It is an insurance policy in case Britannia fails. I see no reason why either the Britannia or this American machine should fail. There is a risk either way, but I should have thought that the risk was very much greater with the Douglas than with the Britannia. The Britannia will have a standard fuselage with new engines, but the American Douglas will be a virtually new aircraft because it will have a lengthened fuselage and longer wings as well as new engines. Whether one is a greater risk than the other, surely our policy should not he to insure in America but to insure in this country.
I agree with the hon. Member for Uxbridge. Why not look at the V.C.1000, the civil version of the Vulcan or the Comet III? Surely, the wise thing to do is to develop these and spend money on these machines instead of flirting with the American proposal.

Group Captain C. A. B. Wilcock: I think that in fairness to B.O.A.C. the hon. Member will agree that the corporation has not cancelled its orders for Britannias, but it is making sure that it will have aircraft available in 1956, 1957 or 1958.

Sir R. Perkins: It might be 1958 or 1959 or 1960; I cannot say when. At the best it will be 1958.
There is just one other point I want to make and that is about the effect of the proposal on our export trade. This proposal to buy this American aircraft when a comparable British machine is

available for the principal State airline in this country is in fact and in effect a vote of no confidence in the British aircraft industry. It will have a tragic effect on our export trade. Last year, the industry had over £60 million of exports. It has had a bitter blow with the Comet and if it is now to suffer another blow that will be the death knell of civil aircraft exports for a long time.
I asked the Bristol Aeroplane Company if it had any evidence about losing markets over this story of B.O.A.C.'s flirting with American aircraft. The company received on 17th October a telegram which it passed on to me. It was from its agent in a country where the company had good hopes of selling up to 10 Britannias to one of the world's major airlines. The telegram said:
Let me make one thing clear from the very start. If B.O.A.C., at this stage, decide to order or even continue negotiations for the DC-7D there is no idea whatsoever to try to sell the Britannia in any shape to our airline and as far as they go we might as well close shop.
How can we expect a foreign airline to buy British aircraft when our premier British airline, which is State-controlled, deliberately by-passes the British product and goes to the United States?
This England never did, nor never shall, Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror, But when it first did help to wound itself.
I cannot believe that the Government will allow this to happen. I cannot believe that a Conservative Government, or any Government in this country, would allow public money to be used to advertise a foreign turbo-propeller inter-continental airline when it is in direct competition with a British machine which is bound to be available at the same time. I am informed that if this order is not placed with the Douglas Aircraft Company the DC-7D will not be built.
I beg the Government, therefore, before they let this order be placed, to have a full inquiry by all the technical experts in this country—and we know that our technical experts are as good as any. I am equally confident that if an inquiry were to take place, the highest hopes of this great aeroplane, the Britannia, would be fulfilled. I believe that the Britannia, like the Vulcan, is a world beater. I believe that a technical inquiry with the experts of the Ministry of Supply and the


Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation would prove that to be true. The way would then be clear for B.O.A.C. to go nap on the Britannia.

4.35 p.m.

Group Captain C. A. B. Wilcock: The question of the purchase of the Britannia as opposed to American aircraft is one which all of us who are interested in civil aviation feel to be a major issue. On the face of it, it must be a major issue. The hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Sir R. Perkins) has put the side of the British aircraft manufacturer as opposed to the British aircraft operator. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) very clearly made the point that in this House we have looked upon B.O.A.C. as an operator of aircraft who must be financially successful.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have a responsibility in this matter. I have said before that over the years they have always looked for a profit irrespective of anything else. Now they must face up to the fact that if they still expect the corporation to make a profit then they must allow it freedom of choice in purchasing its aircraft to make that profit. The alternative is to agree to B.O.A.C. acting as a testing operator for British aircraft and to accept losses without question.
Like my hon. Friends on this side of the House, I want to see the British first in aircraft construction. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said, we have had some very serious setbacks. We do not want to harp on this, but so far as the Britannia is concerned is there the energy and the forcefulness in that particular company to meet anything like the programme required? This morning I was reading a periodical in which the Bristol Aircraft Company was advertising. It is fair to quote this advertisement, which is about the Britannia. It says that the first production machine is moving steadily through final assembly at Filton and at Short Brothers and Harland Limited and that the
manufacture of 'Bristol' Britannia aircraft is assuming a rising momentum appropriate to its super priority rating.
That was last April. I believe that only three have been in the air and their total flying time has been 500 hours. I

do not think that is super-priority rating. I go further than my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. I believe that if there were not so much Government finance behind it, there would be an acceleration in the development of this aircraft.
Turning to the general reports of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.C., they are highly satisfactory, and we welcome them. There is one thing that no report can show, but which is of the greatest importance—that the prestige of these great corporations—and we can now say great—has risen enormously in the last year. It is not a question only of aircraft. It is a question of the name that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.C. have won throughout the world. It is an intangible but invaluable asset achieved by the courtesy, efficiency and reliability of their operations, and they merit our congratulations.
I am sorry that, in regard to freight services and trooping, I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. I appear to disagree with most people on this matter. I still believe that there is a commonsense solution. There should be a clear definition between the functions of the corporations and of the independent operators. What better definition could there be than that the corporations should perform all scheduled services, the carriage of mail and packages, and that the independent operators should have the freight and charter services?
There may be a loss to the corporations, and in particular to the B.E.A., because of the social services. If those services are necessary they should be shown on the balance sheets as subsidised services, and B.E.A. should not be discouraged by having to show a picture which is really quite untrue. I believe that definition between the two types of operators is worthy of consideration by the Minister today. There is a very much more harmonious feeling between the independent operators and the corporations. That should be encouraged. They are both British aviation.
I turn next to helicopters and their development. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows that I am interested in this subject. Though he and his Department have been most sympathetic, energy


is not being displayed by the aircraft industry, with regard to helicopter development. Lord Brabazon, of course, has drawn attention to that. How far the Ministry and the Government can assist, I am not able to say. The Government have assisted financially in the production of every large aircraft that has been produced by the industry during the past 15 years. Whether or not they propose to give that assistance to helicopter development I do not know, but this is a development of aviation that we must closely watch. On the Continent, and in the United States, helicopter development is going ahead very fast. Here it is not, and aircraft manufacturers should, from their own resources, enter this field.
The question of the progress of the Britannia and the tragedy of the Comet are, of course, matters which are very close to us all. It would be fatal were it to be thought that we have not confidence in the development of the Britannia. For various reasons it looks as if the Comet may not be developed in service as a passenger aircraft, and we now have all our eggs in the one basket.
Is the Minister satisfied that it is politic to leave the development of this aircraft, upon which our aviation prestige may depend, in the hands of one company, however good that company may be? I say nothing against the Bristol Aeroplane Company, but is not this the moment when consideration should be given to the sub-contracting to other aircraft manufacturers, to spreading the effort and ensuring that there is super-priority action. It is of such importance to us that I commend this consideration to the Minister and his Department.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. P. B. Lucas: After listening to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock), and from a consideration of the report of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, one fact seems to emerge this year, and that is the improved and improving relationship which is developing between the corporation and the independent operators. During the debate on civil aviation earlier in the year I expressed the view that in the world of air transport we had only just begun to skim off the cream, and that there was business enough for everyone—for independent operators and the corporation alike.
What I then feared was a tendency so to hedge British civil aviation about with myriad restrictions and regulations that we might find ourselves unable, or prevented from being able, to grasp the immense and glittering opportunities which now appeared. I felt that the responsibility of any Administration—left or right—was to provide conditions in which the public corporations and the private companies could go out and win business and prestige for Britain abroad.
I deplored the possibility of a long, ideological battle being waged between the two types of operators—to the detriment of both. A continuation, or an enlarging, of those political differences would, I thought, be both unhelpful and unfortunate. It is, therefore, particularly gratifying to find, at paragraphs 61, 62 and 63, of the report, agreements being mutually entered into between the corporation and the independent operators for the execution and discharge of portions and parts of the corporation's business.
I am specially glad to learn of this latest agreement between Skyways and the corporation for the operation of the corporation's regular freight service between this country and Singapore. That is a good step. I am pleased to see this, if only because it serves to show that these two operators can live together in harmony and peace, as it were parallel to one another, rather than in a foment and turmoil of political strife. To me this trend towards greater co-operation is significant. I am sure that if it is allowed to continue and expand it will prove helpful to Britain and to British aviation.
I wish now to turn for a moment to the possible purchase by the corporation of the DC-7 airframe, a matter to which the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North, has just referred. In this I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Sir R. Perkins). I want to see the British corporation flying British aircraft. It seems to me that, unless it is prepared to do this, it will be hard indeed for the civil manufacturing side of the industry to be sustained.
Take, for example, the case of the Vickers Viscount. Had not B.E.A. pioneered the early use of this aircraft on its European air routes it is quite possible that the orders which we have seen coming from the North American continent


and elsewhere, and which gladden our hearts, might not have materialised. Let us not forget that the British aircraft industry earned £64 million of exports last year. We should be foolish to disregard the great potential in this field.
The operation of British aircraft by the two corporations is the best advertisement which the industry can have. If those corporations are not prepared to pioneer the commercial flying of modern types of British aircraft it is improbable that anyone else will. It is certainly doubtful whether the independent operators, in spite of the financial backing which they are now getting, could ever do so. On this basis, therefore, I should, myself, regret the ordering—at this stage—of these United States airframes, powered though they may be by Rolls-Royce engines.

Mr. Beswick: The hon. Member has spent a good deal of time supporting the independent operator. Would he show an equal concern if any of the private firms bought American aircraft at this stage?

Mr. Lucas: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I hope that my subsequent remarks will have a bearing on that point.
I was saying that, with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and Thornbury, I should deplore at this stage the ordering of these United States aircraft DC-7D as a supplement to the Britannia, or indeed as a form of insurance against things going wrong. That is my personal view.
On the other hand I have a high regard for the commercial ability of the Chairman of B.O.A.C., Sir Miles Thomas, though sometimes I think he says some silly things. Nevertheless, he undoubtedly has commercial ability, and it would be wrong if we were to disregard it. Certainly no one knows the value of publicity better than does Sir Miles Thomas, and I find it difficult to believe that he would really stick his neck out and court inevitable unpopularity in ordering these aircraft unless he felt, on the evidence before him, that it was commercially prudent and necessary to do so. Therefore, for the moment, I preserve an open mind.
It seems to me—and this has some bearing on what the hon. and gallant

Member for Derby, North has said—that either we say to B.O.A.C. "You are a British airline and you are to fly British aircraft," or else "You are a commercial airline; your job is to make profits and win business for Britain, and you are to make the best commercial arrangements you can for the re-equipment of your fleet." That, to my mind, is the only fair way of looking at the matter, and I do not think that we can necessarily have it both ways at the same time.
I hope that the problem of the DC-7D will be approached, as I am sure it will be, by my right hon. Friend with care, reason, and, above all, deliberation. I do not believe that it would be wise to hurry a decision now. I think that would be a mistake which we might later come to regret. At the same time, we must be fair to the corporation if we are to place the making of profits and the commercial aspects of the business above the prosperity and success of the British aircraft industry. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend, in his judgment, will exert his influence to see that all the factors are most carefully weighed and considered before a decision is finally and irrevocably taken.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: On the question of B.O.A.C. using American aircraft, there is one point upon which many of us who are not technicians on this subject feel disturbed, and that is the criticism which has been made in the Press, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas), about the delays caused by the modifications which are specified from time to time by the corporation.
It may well be that modifications are necessary. It may well be that the manufacturers of aircraft has forgotten to develop production speed technique to the degree which modern traffic demands. It seems to me to be wrong to make criticisms of the type which has appeared in a national newspaper and which appears to blame the corporation for demanding modifications during the development stage, when the whole of the traffic and the type of traffic changes continually. It seems to me that the aircraft industry itself has some responsibility for not taking into account sufficiently


these changes which result in modifications being demanded.
There is another point which disturbs a great many of us who are not professional in the game, but who view the aircraft industry from the sideline, and it is that this easy access to Ministers, this rather privileged position of the aircraft industry, is a rather unhealthy aftermath of the war, when such access to Ministers and such privileged positions were a necessity to maintain the war effort. In the post-war period, some of us are not at all sure that the industry is as healthy as it should be.
Farnborough, to which many of us go as interested amateurs looking on at the scene, appears to be something of a glamour show, where, side by side with the creditable achievements of the industry, we can see waste which must be obvious to anybody who knows anything about national finance. We hear that the great companies manufacturing aircraft are short of capital. We are now suffering under a Conservative Government, which believes in private enterprise. Is it not time that a proper investigation was made into the capital structure of the aircraft industry so that we may be able to see whether it is proved that the aircraft industry is relying, far too much on Government aid and assistance?
I want to come now to a rather mundane and possibly small matter which has come to my attention because I am a fairly frequent user of B.E.A. Continental services. I think I shall have difficulty in keeping in order, because to some extent the responsibility is that of the Ministry as opposed to the corporation. May I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that there is adequate consultation between his Ministry and the board and technicians of B.E.A. on the subject of the handling of passenger traffic at London Airport? If we compare the handling of passengers at Orly or Le Bourget with that at Heath Row, the last named does not come out of the comparison very well. I am well aware that at Heath Row the position is changing, and that we shall soon be moving into new permanent airport buildings, but, at the same time, there are certain activities at Heath Row which result in unnecessary frustration and irritating delays which I should have thought

might be dealt with very easily by administrative action.
May I give an example? The departure of buses from Heath Row for Waterloo is slow. Nobody seems to have any idea of urgency, and so much time is wasted in waiting for passengers from other services, who have to join a single bus. Further, why is it that tickets for seats in the buses cannot be sold at the little office which one reaches after finishing with the Customs, as is the case with the French aerodromes? Why does the bus have to wait until all the tickets are sold?
Secondly, I wish to refer to the handling of luggage from the aircraft to the Customs office, which is a very slow process. because at Heath Row the aircraft is brought to a position on the apron so far away from the passenger waiting rooms that one needs a bus to get there. Why is it that the Atlantic aircraft are brought up to a position close to the waiting rooms, while cross-Channel aircraft are left about a quarter of a mile away, necessitating a bus to bring passengers to the airport buildings? It is a fact that one is brought by a bus to the airport buildings, and that the luggage comes along later in a miniature train. I know that the Minister will disagree with me, but it seems to me to be quite unnecessary that there should be these delays.

Mr. Profumo: There is one basic difference. In France, there is one airport handling long-haul traffic and one airport handling short-haul traffic. At London Airport both long- and short-haul aircraft are accepted, and one or other has to be a certain distance away from the passenger accommodation, but I have never known it to be a quarter of a mile away. The difference is that Orly deals only with long hauls, and Le Bourget deals only with short hauls.

Mr. Snow: I hesitate to disagree with the Minister, but he is, I think, misinformed. Both long- and short-hauls are dealt with at Orly.
I can also assure the Minister that the distance from the Customs inspection rooms at Heath Row to the cross-Channel aircraft is a quarter of a mile at least, and that one has to take a bus to get to the aircraft. It is very frustrating.
There is also the question of the lethargic attitude of the bus operators from the airport to Waterloo. I wonder whether some better liaison could be arranged with the Green Line service operating between points west of London to the airport until such time as improvements have been made at the air terminal. We are told that the air terminal is to be moved to the west of London. At present, Green Line buses will transport passengers extremely quickly from points west of London, such as Knightsbridge and Kensington, to Heath Row. But these buses are not so marked.
Furthermore, when the buses arrive in the vicinity of Heath Row they dump the passengers about 300 yards away from the Continental departure point, and sometimes passengers are heavily laden. I saw a woman struggling along with a heavy suitcase the other day, and I assisted her. This walk of 300 yards could be eliminated by altering the stopping point of the Green Line buses.
These are all small, mundane points, but in a journey with a flying time of one hour, to spend an hour travelling from Waterloo to the take-off point seems most unnecessary.

5.2 p.m.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: May I at the outset declare my interest in the aircraft industry, and say that quite recently I have taken the opportunity of flying to America, Australia and New Zealand and have travelled on many different airlines, including American; and I have no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, B.O.A.C. came out on top for its general running and service?
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), with most of whose speech I agreed, referred to the Farnborough show and waste there. As many as 6,000 overseas visitors come to Farnborough, and if we assume that they spend £100 each, they bring quite a lot of foreign currency to this country to see this shop window. If they are entertained, I would say that it is perhaps a good investment.

Mr. Snow: I should not like to underestimate the importance of Farnborough, but it seems a bit lavish, and as for entertainment. I have seen evidence of it.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), who was the opening speaker for the Opposition, was more moderate than he usually is. He was very kind in letting us have a preview of his speech in yesterday's Sunday "Observer." He referred to helicopters and the lack of development. Of course, he and his party must bear some responsibility, because had more money been spent on helicopters five or six years ago, when we were all pressing for that to be done, better results might have been shown today.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Russian aircraft. Unfortunately, most of us know very little about Russian aircraft. I tried to get information from America and Australia, and I was informed that the Russians cut down on weight wherever they can. They cut down on safety devices so much so that they may get a 10 per cent. saving in weight. I mention that because that is what I was told.
As for the Brabazon, here again the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of responsibility, because many of us on these benches, when we were in opposition, asked the Socialist Government to come to a decision on whether it was worth while continuing to spend large sums of money, amounting to £12 million, on that aircraft. I frequently said that development should come to an end. We were always told that the home aircraft industry got benefits from the development of the Brabazon, but very little information has resulted for other manufacturers from that great project which has cost the country so much.

Mr. Beswick: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to be fair, he must admit that the decisions made about the Brabazon and the helicopter were not made by any Member of the Cabinet under the Labour Government, but they accepted the advice of the technical people at that time. It is precisely because the advice of some of those technical people has occasionally led us along false paths that I feel I am entitled to be concerned about the present position.

Air Commodore Harvey: I am finding it difficult to convince the technical people under a Conservative Government.
I have been trying for 2½ years to get some assistance towards the cost of


developing a DC-3 replacement, but not a penny has been forthcoming. We have had to develop on our own. I am not complaining; it may be a good thing. I have always said that the Labour Party did great justice to military and civil aviation, and if anything, they were over-lavish as a Government in this matter, as they were in so many other things.
Reference was made to the V bombers—the Valiant, the Victor and the Vulcan. The chairman of B.O.A.C. refers to these in the B.O.A.C. report in page 33. He says:
Meanwhile, the Corporation has continued to be in close and constant touch with manufacturers in order to assess the probable capabilities of such aircraft as the proposed civil versions of the three types of V-class jet bombers in 'super-priority' production for the R.A.F. It is also collaborating with aeroplane and engine manufacturers …
My own firm, which is making the Victor bomber, has had the greatest difficulty in persuading the chairman or his technical assistants to come and see the Victor and discuss the civil version. I am astonished that he dare put those words into a public report. I cannot get him to come along. I have asked him and his technical advisers to come. They ought to look into these things in much greater detail, because public money is invested in them—many millions of pounds. It is very wrong to ignore these projects when they are considering buying foreign types of aircraft.
I want to pay my tribute to B.E.A.C., to which reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas). I agree that had it not been for the development flying put in by B.E.A.C. on Viscount aircraft, many of the foreign orders which we have had would not have been forthcoming. I am prepared to admit that we do look for profits in the public corporations, but nevertheless there is taxpayers' money invested in the corporations, and we are all entitled to the best results when taxpayers' money is invested. If that is so, we should be a shop window for British products, and although B.E.A.C. has had a large loss, that point must be borne in mind because money has been spent in that direction.
It is said that B.E.A.C. is losing money on the home services—what the hon. Member for Uxbridge referred to as the domestic services. The hon. Gentleman

asked, if it is losing money and the public will not pay, why lure them away from the railways and road transport? He omitted to mention that the independent operators might be willing to undertake those services without a subsidy.

Mr. Beswick: Mr. Beswick indicated dissent.

Air Commodore Harvey: That is what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Beswick: All I am expressing a certain amount of dubiety about is the ability of these private operators to undertake these services.

Air Commodore Harvey: One private operator is operating to Singapore, and another to Scandinavia, and I am sure that, given the opportunity and the available aircraft, they could well undertake these domestic services in the United Kingdom. I should like to know from the Minister whether this matter is being examined.
B.E.A.C. complains that it loses money on all routes under, I think, 260 miles. If it loses money on a journey of 260 miles, the best thing is for it to get rid of it and let somebody else take over if they are willing. I do not know if they are, but the possibility should be looked into.

Mr. Rankin: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as a private operator, be willing to undertake to operate a West Highlands service in Scotland?

Air Commodore Harvey: All companies which are prepared to take on the United Kingdom services should take in the smaller services as well as the plums, such as Glasgow and Northern Ireland. They cannot have all the jam.
I now come to the great problem of whether B.O.A.C. is correct in considering the purchase of United States aircraft four or five years hence. I am utterly astonished that it should even be under consideration. I have had the good fortune of having discussions with the chairman of that great corporation, and I pay my respects to him as an operator. I have also had discussions with the managing director of the Bristol Aeroplane Company, and I have endeavoured to get both sides of the story. We must remember that whether or not aircraft are ultimately ordered from the United


States, tremendous damage is being done to Britain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Sir R. Perkins) made a powerful speech on this point. I have no axe to grind either in respect of the corporation or the Bristol Aeroplane Company, but I have looked at the facts as I see them, and I think that Sir Miles Thomas is completely wrong in considering the ordering of 10 or 15 DC-7Ds at 2½ million dollars each to fill a possible gap in 1958 or 1959. We must remember that not all deliveries are up to date, so they might even be later than that. I cannot see any cause for alarm about a possible future gap. It is quite right that B.O.A.C. should be as certain as it can be about these matters, but I cannot see present cause for alarm.
Let us consider the sequence of events. The Britannia was expressly designed to meet B.O.A.C. requirements. In 1947, B.O.A.C. called for a piston-engined airliner, of 90,000 lb. gross weight, carrying 32–38 passengers, to operate on medium range Empire routes. We all know that as an aircraft is developed specifications are stretched to give more economic performances. The current Britannia Mark 100 is a turbo-prop aircraft of 150,000 lb. gross weight, capable of carrying 90 passengers on long and medium routes, but not over the Atlantic. B.O.A.C. has also ordered the Mark 300, of 155,000 lb. gross weight, carrying 100 passengers, and also the Mark 300 L.R., of 165,000 lb. gross weight with the range increased to 6,100 miles.
Much of the existing doubt hinges upon engine development. The BE 25 engine, which is under development, increases the range of the Mark 300 LR to 6,600 miles, the weight by 5,000 lb., and the speed from 370 to 400 miles per hour. Those figures are far better than any which are offered by the Douglas Company. Progress, with development and production, has to be measured against the dates upon which B.O.A.C. specification requirements are settled. Looking at the Mark 100, the Mark 300, the Mark 300 LR and the BE 25 LR, so far as I can see, the certification target dates are respectively four years, three years, three years, and four and a half years after the dates of settlement of specification.
Those figures were given to me by the managing director of the Bristol Aeroplane Company, and I attach as much importance to them as to anything given by the corporation. The Mark 100 is six to eight months late. That is regrettable, but it is not an excessive delay, taking into account the accidental loss of the second prototype. Things are always liable to go wrong with an aircraft, especially the prototypes. Apart from that, the dates have been unaltered for two years.
The B.O.A.C. says that it cannot put the Mark 100 into operation until the spring of 1956. The Proteus engine was completely redesigned in 1951 for the Britannia, and had its first run in 1952. In August this year it received a full Air Registration Board clearance for carrying fare-paying passengers.
The fact is that the Americans have just wakened up to the possibilities of turbo-prop aircraft. Rolls-Royce has an engine which is not yet running, and, quite rightly, as a commercial firm it is going all over the world trying to sell it. It fits the proposed new wing of the DC-7D exactly, and the Douglas Company says, "If you can get B.O.A.C. to hallmark this and order it, we can sell others." Lord Hives is going all out to sell British engines.
We should not interfere with the production of the Britannia until we know that the airframe or the engines have fallen down. In pay load and range the BE25 compares favourably with the DC-7D in delivery and price, but according to my information B.O.A.C. has made 12 changes in the specification since 1947—changes in numbers ordered, length of fuselage and so on. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth referred to changes. The moment changes are made delay is caused.
In this case the whole story resembles what happened with the Tudors a few years ago. We all know what a disastrous result constant changes had for everybody concerned in that case.

Mr. Snow: My point was whether such changes were unreasonable or inevitable.

Air Commodore Harvey: They are probably quite reasonable and inevitable, but they take time. Nothing delays a drawing office or a production line more than changes in specification. If there is


delay, the purchaser must know what it entails.
The relations between B.O.A.C. and the Bristol Aeroplane Company appeared to be perfectly all right when the report was written. It was published on 29th July this year, and I notice that it is addressed to my right hon. Friend, who took over the Ministry four weeks ago. In the report, B.O.A.C. refers to the Britannia aircraft in the following words:
Delivery of these aircraft, with their promise of outstanding performance and economy of operation, is eagerly awaited by the Corporation. They will be used for first class and tourist traffic and on certain routes they may be equipped to carry both classes of passenger in. the same aircraft. The nucleus of a Britannia Fleet organisation was formed during the year and technical courses on the air frame and engines were undertaken. Moreover, during the flight tests and development flying of the Britannia by the manufacturer, the Corporation's representatives obtained experience of the flying characteristics of the aircraft.
There is no word of doubt in that report in relation to the Britannia. If the corporation was really up to the mark we should have been told that such doubts existed.
I am told that relations between the corporation and the Bristol Aeroplane Company were excellent until the late summer. My suspicion is that something happened at Farnborough, when a Douglas representative was at the show. They probably got together, and I think that something happened then which altered the turn of events.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Would the hon. and gallant Member explain that point further? That is a very serious imputation.

Air Commodore Harvey: It all happened after the report was printed on 29th July. The report does not mention any doubts. We know that the Douglas people were over here negotiating at the time. Undoubtedly they saw the corporation. There is no slur in what I am saying, except in the hon. Gentleman's imagination. There was a firm trying to sell aeroplanes, and I imagine that negotiations on the subject commenced at about the time of the Farnborough display.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Beswick: Really, the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought not to make these remarks. In the first place, as has been previously said, the whole proposition hinged on British Rolls-Royce engines. It has been suggested today that the initiative came from the British Rolls-Royce Company. It was not a matter of waiting for Farnborough before B.O.A.C. could commence negotiations.

Air Commodore Harvey: Anybody is entitled to see anybody else where and when he likes, but we in this House have a duty to take care of the taxpayers' money. I have said nothing against B.O.A.C. I have stated what I think was the time when the negotiations commenced. I still think it was September this year.
B.O.A.C. did a tremendous job of work in getting the Comets into the air. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock) doubted whether the Comets would ever fly again. I hope that that doubt will not spread, because we all hope that the Comet II will be in the air when it has been suitably modified, and that it will regain the Comet's former prestige. When B.O.A.C. got the Comet into the air there was a great deal of publicity, and I am not certain that there was not too much publicity. The Chairman of B.O.A.C. is a great publicist. I do not blame him. He is selling tickets to make his airline pay. However, I think it would be a good thing if his fellow executives also came into the picture and did some of the advertising.
I do not think there is very much wrong with the Britannia, and perhaps this debate may even be a jerk for the Bristol Company, and I hope it will get down to the job, helped by the Air Registration Board and B.O.A.C. and other companies manufacturing aircraft which would be prepared to lend assistance, either with drawing office work or with the wind tunnel work—with anything that would speed up the delivery of these aircraft and with the main project.
My hon. Friend said that if the Britannia fails Britain's civil aviation prospects will be impaired for a number of years. I go so far as to say that it will be impaired for 10 or 20 years, so far as the selling of British aircraft of that size abroad is concerned. Let us take


care of the situation. We still have a lead over the Americans. They are very jealous of what we have in this country. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We have had one only real setback, and we are rapidly overcoming that. Let us hold our heads high and make aircraft to sell abroad.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I do not wish to enter into the controversy whether B.O.A.C. should buy the DC-7–6 planes or not, but it appears to me that the hon. Members who have spoken from the other side today have been far better briefed by the Bristol Aeroplane Company than they have been by B.O.A.C. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) spoke in rather dubious terms about the negotiations which took place, but it seems to me that we have no reason to assume or impute that there has been anything but direct, normal business negotiations on this matter. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member, when he reads them in HANSARD, will regret the words with which he expressed himself.

Air Commodore Harvey: I have no regret at all for what I said. I was trying to pinpoint the time when negotiations started. I said that B.O.A.C.'s annual report of 29th July made no reference to any doubt that may have been in the corporation's mind about the Britannia, and that, therefore, it was subsequent to July that the negotiations commenced, and, leaving out the August holidays, that they probably commenced at or about the time of Farnborough. The hon. Gentleman should not be so sensitive.

Mr. Davies: It is not a question of being sensitive, but the hon. and gallant Member suggested that something was wrong, and that was why the whole of this side of this House reacted against the statement he made. I do not wish to enter into this controversy, although it has a direct bearing on the main question that has emerged from the debate and emerges from the reports we are considering.
That is the question: are these public corporations to be operated as business concerns and to be judged entirely by commercial standards or are they to be

operated as public services, which means that other considerations have to be taken into account? Up to the present we have endeavoured to combine public and commercial services; we have endeavoured to operate them commercially and yet to provide a public service. We expect them, on the one hand, to operate commercially and, on the other, to serve the British aircraft industry, and to establish British civil aviation services throughout the world.
In trying to run the organisations commercially those responsible have been handicapped by obligations which have been imposed upon them, and the time has now come when this question has to be re-examined. We have now to make up our minds whether it will any longer be possible for these public corporations to combine the operation of public services with commercial success. One reason this question has now come up is that the position has been affected by the change in civil aviation policy, which has introduced new factors into the operations of the public corporations and has made their position to some extent more difficult.
There are two arguments that are deployed why these public corporations should essentially operate a public service. The first is the one that led to the original establishment of Imperial Airways, which led later to B.O.A.C., and which was the desire to assist in the establishment of a network of British civil aviation services linking various parts of the Commonwealth and Empire and giving a comprehensive worldwide service. That entailed, particularly in the initial stages, the operation purely for prestige reasons of external routes which could not pay their way, and similarly, to the establishment of certain internal services which were equally unprofitable.
Both corporations have succeeded in that object. I note, for instance, in the report of B.E.A. that today over 50 per cent. of the passengers who travel by air from the United Kingdom to Europe and vice versa travel B.E.A. That is a very great achievement, that a single corporation should succeed in carrying half the traffic. One of B.O.A.C's. equally great achievements is to attract to itself over 40 per cent. of the traffic cross the North Atlantic between Canada, the United


States of America and the United Kingdom. That is a very fine achievement for which considerable credit is due to the past development of the Corporation.
Although it has succeeded on its European routes, however, B.E.A.C., as has already been pointed out, has not succeeded in making its internal routes profitable, and the loss on those operations alone is in excess of £1 million. I would very much question whether the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield is right in speaking of the willingness of private operators to take over these unprofitable routes. They have had opportunity to make application to the Air Transport Advisory Council, but in very few cases have applications been made, and it has been made clear on several occasions, particularly so far as the Scottish services are concerned, that no offers have been forthcoming. That is one argument put forward for considering the corporations on the basis of their providing a public service.
The second argument was put forcibly, though indirectly, by the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Sir R. Perkins), who made a strong plea for priority to be given to the British aircraft manufacturers in the purchase of British planes. In effect, he placed the welfare of the British aircraft manufacturers above the commercial success of the B.O.A.C., and that is a factor which must be taken into account.
It has never been the policy of the previous Government or of this Government, as far as I am aware, to insist that these corporations should fly British entirely, but that has always been the hope of both Governments and of hon. Members. As we have been told, there has been considerable success in this direction, with the Viscount as an outstanding example. If it were not for B.E.A., the Viscount would not exist today. If it were not for B.E.A. spending such large sums on its development there would not have been the export orders for that plane which have been so valuable to the country and to British manufacturers.
Unfortunately, there have been the failures, which have already been mentioned. I should have thought that there was reason for B.O.A.C. to have some doubt as to whether it is following the

right and prudent course in putting all its eggs in the Britannia basket. In view of its most unfortunate and, indeed, tragic experience with the Comet, it is understandable that the corporation should be adopting this attitude.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member should bear in mind that, whereas the Cornet operated over 40,000 feet, the Britannia, a turbo-prop, will operate at 15,000 feet or lower altitudes.

Mr. Davies: I was not comparing the two planes; technically, they are entirely different propositions. I was saying that, because B.O.A.C. has had a bad experience with the Comet, it is understandable that it should make this reinsurance in connection with the Britannia. It has to look ahead. I am not saying which is the correct decision, because I do not think many hon. Members are in a position to judge on that issue, which will have to be decided by the technicians, and, ultimately, by the Minister. It will be a difficult decision for him to make.
The amount of money which has been poured into the British aircraft industry, both by the Government through the Ministry of Supply and by the corporations through their assistance in the development of aircraft, requires some consideration. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), in his admirable speech, suggested that there should be an inquiry into the whole of the aircraft manufacturing industry in view of the very large sums of public money which have gone into it.
It is not going too far to suggest that to some extent the industry has been feather-bedded, and I was shocked to find an instance of this recently, for I saw that large payments had been made to some companies for the production of planes by other firms, during the war, for the development of which they were responsible. It seems deplorable that war-time production of types developed for one firm by another should lead ultimately to Government payments to the original company. During the war all aircraft manufacturers did well enough, for their own factories were in full production and they made substantial profits. This payment may be in accordance with the contracts which were made for the prototypes, which had been


produced with Government assistance, but I believe that these contracts were found to be undesirable and changed in 1941.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: I am sorry to interrupt, as I know the hon. Member is trying to be brief. He is suggesting that there was a certain amount of feather-bedding for the aircraft industry. He should bear in mind that, in the case of the Comet, de Havilland has taken a fearful sock in the jaw, to the tune of many million pounds, with complete disruption of design, development and production. The company is bearing that itself and is not pleading for tremendous Government assistance, although the experience has affected the company adversely. This is a strange form of feather-bedding.

Mr. Davies: That has no relevance to what I was saying. As a matter of fact, it is doubtful whether de Havilland will he able to stand the loss which appears to be inevitable in the development of the Comet. Suggestions have already been made that de Havilland is appealing for assistance from both the Government and the corporations. I suggest that the hon. Member should wait awhile before he is certain that the company will itself bear all this loss.

Air Commodore Harvey: On a point of order. The Comet inquiry is still pro-ceding. Is it not quite wrong at this stage to discuss the merits of the firm's financial stability and whether it will meet its obligations or not?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): It is not out of order.

Mr. Davies: I had not de Havilland in mind at that moment. There are certain companies, of which de Havilland is not one, which completely waived their rights to collect in accordance with contracts entered into. They were so public-spirited because of the war and the profits which they made. They waived their rights entirely. I was referring to another company. It is stated in its report by Fairey Aviation Company that it received, during the last financial year, £100,000, which enabled the company to pay out to its shareholders a bonus of 9d. per share, and I suggest that, 15 years after the event, it is undesirable for shareholders to be receiving a bonus in respect

of money paid by the Government for manufacture during the war.
If the corporations are to continue as public services and are at the same time to be commercially successful, I think it is necessary for them to have certain exclusive operational rights, just as they had them until the change of policy introduced by this Government. This is necessary, first, to ensure that Government assistance is kept down to the absolute minimum and, secondly, to enable an optimum use to be made of their aircraft.
There is adequate competition in the international sphere. There is very acute competition on the main continental routes, as well as on other international routes. It is pointed out in the B.O.A.C. report that encroachment upon its services by the change of policy led it to make approaches to the Minister. We do not know the result of those approaches, but the corporations were so concerned about the position that the chairmen of both corporations made their joint representations. Government policy has permitted a dangerous encroachment upon this exclusiveness even in the main scheduled services let alone on the other services of the corporations. This encroachment has been especially in regard to three matters to which reference has already been made. There is, of course, the operations of the freight services by the independents, in respect of which it appears that B.O.A.C. has largely become an agent, being forced to enter into these agreements with the independents and accept the role of agent, except in some minor cases.
The second is the institution of the colonial coach services, which are having considerable repercussions upon the fare structure of B.O.A.C. because of their agreement about fares and which are also encroaching upon their load factor. That is a known fact. In view of the restrictions on B.O.A.C. in that respect, it is not a form of fair competition. We cannot have competition unless it is on equal terms. It is not a question of competition but of straightforward encroachment on the services of one by the other. The third is the withholding from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. of the right to tender for trooping.
In my view, this policy which the Government are pursuing is hampering the development of the public corporations,


whether they are regarded as a public service or not. If they are to be considered purely from the commercial standpoint, then these corporations must be permitted to operate fairly and unfettered. That is to say, that they must be free to buy what planes they want and where they wish. That would be essential if they are to operate on a commercial basis, and it would be for them to decide on that issue.
They would have to be free to compete for all work that was offered and without any restriction in regard to trooping, charter work and freight operations, and they would have to be free to drop the unremunerative routes, if they so desired. If we are to regard these public corporations purely from the point of view of a commercial proposition, they have to be as free as their competitors, both at home and in the international field.
If, on the other hand, we are to consider them as a public service, then I think the Government should go out of their way to give them greater assistance than they are giving at the present time. They could make considerable concessions in regard, for instance, to the fuel tax which has to be borne by the corporations on the internal services. They could make concessions with regard to landing charges, which are higher in this country than in many other countries, and which are a considerable burden, as is pointed out in the B.E.A. report.
I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has brushed aside too easily the suggestion in the B.E.A. report that the deficiency payments should be supplanted by payment for services rendered. That is to say, that there should be payments made to the corporations for strategic or national services which are not required for commercial reasons and which have to be operated in the national interest. It is not necessary to wait until 1956 when changes, in any case, can be made because under the Act the subsidies come to an end at that time. It could be worked within the terms of the present Act.
I think that all of us who speak this afternoon wish to pay our tribute to the work which has been done by the two corporations during the past year. They deserve credit for their great achievements, and any criticisms which are made in regard to policy or to certain aspects

of their operations are not criticisms of the corporations as such. They are succeeding and will continue to succeed. I fear that as the effects of the present Government civil aviation policy are increasingly felt difficulties will develop, and they may have unfortunate repercussions on the public corporations, which will affect perhaps the quality of the services which they will provide and also their profitability.
I would suggest that if the Parliamentary Secretary, who made such a reasonable speech and clearly revealed the interest which we know he has in civil aviation, desires these corporations to succeed, and if he holds that view sincerely, he must agree that there should be a review of the present policy in order to prevent any further encroachment upon the public corporations.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams: I shall not keep the House for more than a few minutes, but I should like to have the opportunity of intervening in this debate in order to deal with some of the important things that have been happening to British aviation over the last 12 months.
I want to make passing reference to the Comet. This is, of course, still subject to an inquiry, and I cannot say very much about it. But, when considering the question both of the Comet and of the Britannia, one must bear in mind that both these aeroplanes received very considerable backing from the B.O.A.C. when they were first designed and laid down, and all through their development. It is unfortunate that at this stage in the development of the Britannia, in particular, we find the principal corporation concerned in the operation of this airline taking a critical line, and at this rather late stage. I was surprised to see in the Press last Saturday a statement put out by the Chairman of British Overseas Airways Corporation, Sir Miles Thomas. I think that it was unfortunate that that statement was made, especially a that time. He must have known that there was to be a debate in this House today, and I think that it is discourteous to this House to try and jump the gun in that way.
The point which stuck in my mind and to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is the statement in the


second paragraph, that no order for the Britannia in any of its various forms had ever been cancelled or refused. The statement goes on to say that no changes had been made in the aircraft specification requested by B.O.A.C. That statement, according to the information which I have, is quite incorrect. Although my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) has already referred to certain changes made in the specification in the ordering of the Britannia aircraft from the Bristol Aeroplane Company, I wish to draw the attention of the House to certain differences of orders and changes of specification actually made in the course of the production of this aircraft.
In July, 1949, the company received an order from the British Overseas Airways Corporation for 25 production aircraft with six Centaurus piston engines, and the corporation retained the right under the order to install Proteus engines later if these engines were found suitable. That took place in July, 1949. In February, 1950, the order was limited to 15. I should have thought that that could have been interpreted as a change of order and a reduction in the order. In December, 1950, there was another change. The order was increased again to 25. The Centaurus engines were wiped out and the Proteus engines put in their place. This particular change caused quite a lot of alterations to be made to the wing design of the Britannia.
During 1951, the corporation agreed the final specification for the aeroplane: namely, that there would be two Proteus-powered prototypes and 25 production aircraft. But this order was changed again in September of the same year, when only one prototype was to be manufactured and the remainder of the order were to be Mark 100 types. That is not the end of the story. That state of affairs lasted, if my information is correct, until May, 1953, when the 25 production aircraft were changed to 15 as Mark 100 and 10 as Mark 300. These are all considerable changes, and not slight modifications.
The original aeroplane was envisaged with a total gross weight of 90,000 lb. and 11,000 lb. payload, and was to carry 32 to 38 passengers. The Mark 100 Britannia has a gross weight of 150,000 lb., with a payload of 25,000 lb.,

and is intended to carry 90 passengers. The order in 1953, referring to Mark 300's, required 5,000 lb. extra payload and accommodation for 10 extra passengers, making 100 passengers altogether. There are other changes which have taken place also. Cargo versions of the machine have been ordered. On one occasion three were ordered, but the number was subsequently reduced to two. Mixed cargo and passenger types were ordered, but the numbers of these also were changed at a later date.
I do not think it is fair for a statement like this to be put out about a private company shortly before an important debate of this nature, unless the statement is absolutely correct. There is no doubt that there have been drastic changes in the orders placed with the Bristol Aeroplane Company by B.O.A.C. There may have been good reason for the changes, but it is not fair then to turn round and say that the company is responsible for the delay in the production of these aircraft. I believe that the company has done extremely well.
Many hon. Members have great experience of the aircraft industry. We all know the difficulties which that industry has to face with a rapidly developing new type of engine or aeroplane. Those difficulties are made still greater if the customer who purchases the aircraft constantly changes his mind. In such circumstances, any company which was not further behind than the Bristol Company is with the Britannia today would be doing very well indeed.
My plea to the Minister this afternoon is that an examination should be made as to why there have been these constant changes in the specifications and orders for the Britannias. It is a fairly common trait in the aircraft industry for this to happen. This is a particularly bad example, and I think that something could be done in the future to improve the freezing of designs at an early date to allow the makers to get ahead with manufacturing an aeroplane and to get it into service. I ask my right hon. Friend to institute an inquiry in this direction.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu: It is unfortunate that this discussion on the future prospects of the British Overseas Airways Corporation should have taken the form, particularly in the speech of


the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), of attempting to find out who is to blame for the fact that the Britannia aircraft is not in the air on time. In a copy of the Press statement issued by B.O.A.C., which I have with me, the corporation says:
Since the Britannia contract was placed five-and-a-half years ago, no material changes in the airframe specification have been requested by B.O.A.C.
The corporation points out that
The Bristol Company has progressively offered alternative engines …
and I believe that one or two of those engines have not been very successful since they were first offered. I do not know who is right or wrong, but I have no reason to believe that the B.O.A.C., which has done an excellent job in trying to pioneer revolutionary types of British aircraft, would try to deceive either the public or this House. We have no right to assume that the corporation is any more in the wrong than is the Bristol Aeroplane Company. I for one would hate to try to decide who was right by debate across the Floor of the House.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member states that there has been no airframe change with the Britannia, yet it is acknowledged that the original aircraft was designed for 38 passengers whereas the existing version is to take 100. A modification of that kind is hardly possible without material change.

Mr. Albu: I was quoting from the Press statement of B.O.A.C. and saying that I had no reason to believe that the corporation would try to deceive the public any more than would the aircraft company. We must assume, therefore, that the question of who is to blame is not proven.
All of us in the House are very anxious indeed about the future of the British aircraft industry. I have nothing to be ashamed of; I have spoken many times about the importance of developing exports like aircraft; I have broadcast about it, and last year I spent seven weeks in the United States giving lectures, mostly about developments in British industry. I think that in every town which I left, the local newspaper carried a headline, "Britain five years ahead in jets." Therefore, it was with some reluctance that I tabled an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for

Stroud and Thornbury (Sir R. Perkins) about B.O.A.C.'s proposal to buy American aircraft.
The question that the House has to face in discussing our airlines is what aircraft the B.O.A.C. will be flying in 1958–59. As I understand it, there is no question of cancelling the orders for the Britannias; that has never even been suggested by B.O.A.C. But we must face the fact that these aircraft so far have very little flying time—and, incidentally, practically no flying time pressurised. The Britannia is a completely new aircraft, with a completely new type of airframe. It is very unlikely that we would receive overseas orders for these machines until the Britannia begins to fly in this country, or from this country, with B.O.A.C.
Therefore, I cannot see that the decisions taken by B.O.A.C. about the aircraft it will buy, providing that the corporation does not cancel its contracts for the Britannia, will in any way affect orders which the Bristol Aeroplane Company might expect to receive for this aircraft. It seems to me that the company will begin to get the orders as the aircraft begin to fly, as de Havillands began to get orders for the Comet and as Vickers are getting orders for the Viscount, after they have been flown, and successfully flown, by British operators.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: No. Canadian Pacific Airlines ordered its Comets when the machine was in prototype form, long before it was ever operated.

Mr. Albu: That is the exception which proves what seems to me to be the fairly general rule.
I shall not go into great detail, because I do not pretend to be an expert, but it seems clear that the Douglas DC-7D, which B.O.A.C. proposes to buy as an insurance for the years 1958 and 1959, is not really a revolutionary aircraft. It is an evolution from existing types, although it may be larger, with wider wings, and so on. It is an evolution from an airframe that is already 90 per cent. proven in use.
If by 1958–59 B.O.A.C.'s competitors in international airlines start using this aircraft, and the enlarged Bristol aircraft, which it is proposed that B.O.A.C. should use, has not come along in production and has not been flying long enough for it to be used extensively, the corporation


will be in a very weak position indeed in international competition. If by any chance the Bristol aircraft is not flying—and, after all, it is a revolutionary aircraft—the corporation would be practically out of business. No one can argue against that. I am not saying that the DC-7D will be a successful aircraft, but it would not be a bad idea to have some of these aircraft on order, at any rate as an insurance.
May I suggest that we ought to consider in a broader and more general manner British aircraft exports and their relation to the British economy? The buying of these aircraft may also be something of an insurance for the British aircraft industry itself, because they are going to use British engines. It may well be that the future of the British industry lies in a greater expansion of engine production, on which we are undoubtedly ahead of the world, rather than of aircraft frames, on which we are not so far ahead. It would be very foolish to throw away the possibility of an insurance by getting a large number of new Rolls-Royce engines in aircraft flying all round the world, which would be of substantial assistance for the aircraft engine industry.
I must support my hon. Friends on this side of the House in expressing some doubt about the way in which the aircraft industry in this country operates, particularly in the way it gets its orders and its finance and whether this is conducive to manufacturing efficiency. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) talked about feather-bedding the industry, and there is no shadow of doubt about it being feather-bedded.
There is a strong feeling amongst a large number of people that the industry is much too slow in getting its aircraft into production and much too slow in producing them when it has. There are very disturbing stories about the failure of ancillary equipment, and some of the aircraft which have now been taken out of service in our civil air lines have been particularly bad in this respect. The cost of keeping aircraft on the ground through maintenance alone is very substantial. The loss to operators through failure in ancillary equipment may not of itself be very expensive, but the time taken in replacement or repair can be extremely

harmful to the profitability of the airline. One hears far too many stories of the failure of ancillary equipment in British aircraft.
In the early part of the year at a conference on engineering production, I think it was the chief engineer of B.E.A. who had some harsh words to say about the finish of some British aircraft, and particularly the finish and quality of ancillary equipment. He was much attacked then for what he said, but those hon. Members who keep their ears to the ground on this matter consider that he had a great deal of right on his side. These matters are very important, and there is some reason for believing that failure of ancillary equipment is what is holding up the bringing into production of the Britannia itself.
One has also heard disturbing stories about inadequate inspection. I think this all adds up to the fact that the industry pays far too little attention to its methods of production and its production management. If only a little of the brilliance that undoubtedly exists in the research and development side were put into the manufacturing side some of these doubts might not arise. We might get aircraft into production quicker and have less failures in ancillary equipment. Anyone who knows the aircraft industry knows that the quality of those responsible for manufacturing is much less than the quality of those responsible for development and research. All the brains are concentrated on research and development, and, on the whole, it seems that the attitude is that it does not matter much how the aircraft is produced. That was the attitude we had to face during the war, and there is no doubt—I am not saying it is universal—that it is still the case now, and that it affects the development of our civil aircraft.
In view of the enormous amount of public money that goes to support the industry, this is something we cannot leave uninvestigated. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), in what I thought was a most admirable speech, as I thought also was his letter in the "Observer" yesterday, referred to this very important aspect of the matter. He dealt with the amount of public money that is involved, and he also mentioned something else—the question whether the resources and the public money are


not too thinly spread, and whether there would not be a more efficient industry if the resources were more concentrated. For the reasons that he gave, I support his demand for an inquiry.
Finally, I should like to ask the Minister what is going to happen to B.O.A.C. losses over the Comet. Is it to be relieved of the losses? It will, of course, be relieved if it makes a loss, because the taxpayer will have to pay; and, at any rate until a few weeks ago, the right hon. Gentleman was very interested in the taxpayer. If B.O.A.C. is relieved of the loss, it is an indirect subsidy to de Havillands, because, under ordinary commercial conditions, if that sort of thing arose, then the chances are that no further order would be placed with the company. I am not suggesting that for a moment. I hope no one will misunderstand what I am saying, because we all support the close relationship between the manufacturing industry and the operators, but this raises a very important question. If this is done, the industry will be still further feather-bedded and further protected from risks which, in normal conditions of private enterprise, the shareholders and the management undertake. We cannot be unaware of this.
The truth is that the whole position of the aircraft industry's relations as between the shareholder, the customer, the Government and the taxpayer is so absolutely out of this world compared with anything else we know, either in public or in private industry, that we cannot use any ordinary standard by which to judge it. I agree that what we really need is a thorough re-examination of the way the industry is financed to insure that public money is not wasted and that the industry keeps on its feet not only in research and development but equally in production.

6.17 p.m.

Major D. McCallum: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not enter into the controversy of the Britannia versus the Douglas and B.O.A.C. and the manufacturers. I want to take the House for a moment north of here and ask it to consider some points affecting civil aviation in Scotland. Let me say at once that though I am a

member of the Scottish Advisory Council on Civil Aviation, I am expressing my own personal views and in no way the views of the Council.
I want to deal with what some hon. Members have said, including the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), who referred to the question of whether or not B.E.A. was right, as a public corporation, in providing what they called social services in civil aviation in Scotland. I query very much the title of a social service in Scotland, because it is nothing of the kind. The services provided are paid for by the users, more especially in the Highlands and Islands.
I have on occasions suggested to B.E.A. that it should put on a second aircraft, particularly from one of the islands to Renfrew to take some of the additional traffic, but I have always been told something like this by the corporation, "I am sorry we cannot do it, because the traffic does not warrant it." There is one full machine and the corporation is not prepared to put on another because there is not quite sufficient extra traffic for it, but it seems to me that it does not do badly with the one machine which is being used. In no way can it be called a social service.
It is said in this House and in the Press that B.E.A. ought to be provided with a subsidy for the Scottish internal services in the same way as the MacBrayne Company is provided with a subsidy for its shipping services on the west coast of Scotland. The two services are entirely different because MacBraynes have to undertake the maintenance of piers and stores up and down the west coast of Scotland in addition to steamers, whereas the airfields that B.E.A. land at are maintained by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. I have pointed out before that a steamer service and an air service is entirely different from the point of view of maintenance costs.
I want to raise with the Minister the question of the closing down of the maintenance workshops at the Renfrew base and their transfer to London Airport. I am sure my right hon. Friend knows that this has caused much indignation throughout Scotland. It is a great strategic mistake to transfer practically all the skilled


aviation maintenance staff in this way. It is putting all our eggs in one basket. Think what would be the position in an emergency if London Airport were put out of action and the base at Renfrew had become non-existent. I think I am speaking for hon. Members on both sides who represent Scotland when I say that we hope a Cabinet decision will be taken on this matter on the recommendation of the Minister, bearing in mind not only employment and the future of the aviation industry but the strategic position as well.
Many hon. Members have referred to helicopters. I agree with one or two hon. Members who feel that in this country there is not as much drive in the development of the helicopter as there is in other countries. I do not know whether the fault lies with the manufacturing side of the industry or with the operating side, but I do know that America has been supplying the helicopters for our Navy, Army and Air Force. It is true that the United States has had a long start, but helicopters are also being used on the Continent. Surely our aviation industry could have produced a British helicopter by this time.
It was in 1946, I think, that several hon. Members and myself were taken on demonstration flights by one of the aviation companies, and we were told then that great developments were expected. That was eight years ago and still we are waiting for a British helicopter. Each time we have a debate on civil aviation more and more hon. Members refer to the helicopter. Several years ago these machines were mentioned only by one or two of us, but now almost every hon. Member is interested; and yet we seem as far away as ever from satisfactory developments.
It is stated that a helicopter service is to be established between the South Bank and London Airport, to obviate the bus journey. Is there no means of persuading either the corporation or the Ministry to get an American-built or -licensed helicopter for experiment in Scotland? I know that this would entail extra expense because of the technical staff needed to maintain such a helicopter at Renfrew or elsewhere, but it is in the remote areas, in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, that the future of

these machines lies. In some of those remote areas there is no alternative form of transport and the helicopter would mean that the inhabitants could count on this form of transport for their lawful occasions.
In the north-west of Scotland nobody need worry about the noise; indeed, we would put up with four times the amount of noise if necessary because only the sheep on the hills would be annoyed by it. It is wrong that we in the far North should have to wait until urban development of the helicopter service has proved a commercial success, with machines carrying 40 or 50 passengers. We do not want large machines. We want helicopters carrying 12 passengers at the most between the remote areas, which today cannot be reached even by steamer, and the centre of business or government.
I expect I shall be told by my right hon. Friend that the Twin Pioneer is the answer to the problem, but there are certain places in Scotland where even a Twin Pioneer could not land. During the last few weeks we have been reading of rescues at sea carried out by helicopter and it is to these machines that Scotland looks, because there are some rocky areas where only they can land. It is, therefore, to the helicopter that we are looking for the solution of some of our transport problems and we would like to see more drive towards an experimental service in the North-West of Scotland.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I hope that, in entering the debate, I shall find myself under no handicap, because I have no aircraft to sell. For that reason, I shall not venture to embark into the discussion or argument which has taken place about the Britannia and the DC-7D, except to observe that I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members will agree that an aircraft ought to sell on its merits, whether at home or abroad. If an aircraft fails to sell abroad for some reason or other, that is not the type of aircraft we ought to seek to impose on our operators at home.
I find myself more in agreement than usual with my hon. opponent, the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum). While I hope to support him on some of the topics which he raised, I utter a word of caution about the helicopter. I know the impatience which


hon. Members on both sides of the House feel about the need for a machine that can hop from here to there in a very short time, but one must realise that those who travel in the helicopter are sitting under the engine and that this Government and the previous Government pledged themselves to follow as their policy in civil aviation safety first, second and all the time. If passengers are sitting in a machine which carries its engine above them, then those passengers cannot be said to be in a position which fulfils the safety provisions upon which any Government must insist.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that, as a matter of safety in the experiments which are to be undertaken by B.E.A. during the next year, floats will be attached to the helicopter, but the rotor is the weak point always. If the rotor fails, the machine will plummet to earth, and no passenger has the slightest chance of escaping.

Major McCallum: The present single-rotor helicopter has the engine behind the passenger. It has only the rotor above.

Mr. Rankin: That may be so, but it is not true in every case, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, and it is still the case that the engine is at a higher level than the passenger.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: No.

Mr. Rankin: Yes, I have flown in helicopters. There is no such element of safety built into the helicopter as should prompt us to ask any Government to take too hasty steps in using it for civil aviation. We must be cautious in our approach to its use.
I should like to support the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll in his attitude towards what has been called the social services in Scotland, though I support him for reasons which are different from those that he gave. "Social services" is the wrong description. Every one of us wants to see more timber growing in Scotland and more food coming from the land and the sea. If we are to achieve that, it is necessary to enable people to go on living in those parts of Scotland where those occupations of national importance are pursued. If we are to keep them there, it is imperative that we should provide them

with transport services. Those services should be as speedy as possible, so that the people who live on the perimeter should feel as much a part of the general population as those who live in the great industrial cities. That is why it is necessary to maintain these services, whether they are run at a loss or not.
I interrupted the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), who is not now in the Chamber, to ask whether, as a private operator, he would be willing to undertake the West Highlands services. He replied that they would require to be undertaken within the framework of the national service. I agree. B.E.A. should be responsible for carrying out what is, in essence, part of national Government policy. That is a point which might be explored, but I do not think that it is fair to put the onus entirely on B.E.A. If we do so and say that B.E.A. should maintain those services, why stop there? Why should B.O.A.C. escape their obligation? That corporation is a British airline just like B.E.A., started and encouraged by the Government. It has been helped in many ways and, to a large extent, has consumed taxpayers' money in the past. Why should the social services not be debited to both airlines?
It is my firm belief that in the long run we shall be compelled to integrate these two services at some level. B.O.A.C. made a clear profit of over £2 million and B.E.A. declared a loss of £1,750,000. The Scottish social services are supposed to be largely responsible for that loss. Therefore, if one takes the loss on the Scottish social services and adds it to the loss sustained by B.E.A. one finds that civil aviation is doing very well. It is "washing its face." Revenue and expenditure are balanced. There is a profit on B.O.A.C. despite the loss created by B.E.A. We must work the two together somehow. It is not fair to bring them into competition. That is what happens when we deal with the two reports together.
Most people have been complimenting B.O.A.C., and most people have been critical of B.E.A. Every one of us knows that B.E.A. has the harder job. In view of the fact that the intromissions of both corporations show, on the whole, that revenue and expenditure balance, we can get a better appreciation of the state of British airline operations if we view the


two reports as one. We shall reach, ultimately, a position where we require to integrate the two corporations into one corporation dealing with the whole of our aircraft services.
I want to support the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll in his plea that the maintenance base at Renfrew ought to remain as it is. When Lord Douglas, Chairman of British European Airways, introduced the report that is now before us at a Press conference in London in September, he stated that the deficit which faced B.E.A. was not in any way contributed to by the maintenance base at Renfrew. He made that perfectly clear. He pointed out that when the Viking fleet ceased to operate, as it has now ceased, Renfrew would become uneconomic.
That exactly is the case that has been put forward for keeping the maintenance base at Renfrew. The corporation says that it has created a loss, but those figures are disputed. An assessor has been appointed, and I understand he reported two weeks ago. I believe he has earned his money so far as B.E.A. is concerned. He supports entirely the case presented by the corporation. We do not quarrel with that, but we ask the Minister that, before he comes to a decision on the point, he will very carefully consider appointing an independent assessor who will examine the case presented by both bodies.
In the past year Pionair maintenance has been costing £250,000 at Renfrew. Viking output on the maintenance side was also £250,000, and from sundry other jobs another £30,000 came in, making a total income for the base of £530,000. B.E.A., in detailing the costs of running the base, say that they are £440,000. If we take the B.E.A. figures of costs against the income derived from the base, we are left with a profit of £90,000 for running the base. Those figures cannot be disregarded. We ask the Minister to examine them very seriously before coming to any decision to transfer those employed there—not all of them, because out of the 600 employed now 250 will lose their jobs altogether. From the human aspect, that is a serious problem.
The matter is now in the hands of the Minister, and I hope that before he comes to a final decision he will very closely

examine the figures I have put forward and which have been substantiated in detail by the people at Renfrew. They have been accepted by the National Joint Council for Civil Aviation Transport, which has inquired very closely into the matter. We want to help B.E.A. and do not want to see it shouldering any burdens it ought not to shoulder, but the claim of the Renfrew people is that it is not being asked to shoulder a burden, as there is a profit in running the base. I submit that these figures have to be examined very closely before a final decision is arrived at by the Minister. I ask him tonight to see that that close examination is given before his final conclusion is reached.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Cyril W. Black: I hope that the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) will excuse me if I do not follow him in the subject matter of his speech as I want to address the House—very briefly because I realise that time is short and other hon. Members wish to speak—on the proposals for the expansion and future use of Gatwick Airport. Those proposals are a great concern to the nation in general and, in particular, to the people of Surrey, especially those who live in the immediate neighbourhood of the airport.
Perhaps it is right for me at this stage to declare an interest—not a financial interest—in this matter as a member of the County Council of Surrey, which is the town planning authority for the area in which Gatwick Airport is situated. It will be within the knowledge of the House that the proposals of the Government for the expansion and future of the airport have been a matter of prolonged and sometimes heated controversy.
I do not want to spend more than a moment or two in considering that controversy, but I must say that the weight of expert evidence against the proposals of the Government is at least as strong as the weight of evidence in favour. The proposals which the Government now have for the use of this airport are in violation of pledges given on no fewer than three occasions by previous Governments.
There was a lamentable failure to consult the local authorities at a sufficiently early stage when the proposals were under consideration. The terms of reference to


Sir Colin Campbell, who conducted the inquiry, prevented the consideration of alternative sites to that of Gatwick and, on the whole, the Press has been overwhelmingly against the proposals of the Government on this matter.
Having said that, I think we must now accept the fact that with the publication of the White Paper it was made clear that the Government have decided, for better or worse, to proceed with these proposals. There are one or two matters which arise out of these proposals on which I hope it may be possible for the Minister to give some satisfactory assurances when he replies to the debate.
It is quite clear that these proposals will involve a great deal of hardship on people living in the immediate vicinity and in the neighbourhood of this airport. It is important, particularly in view of the present state of public opinion, and the great concern felt throughout the nation at the hardship which has arisen in recent cases of compulsory purchase, that everything possible should be done to minimise the loss and hardship and the diminution of amenities which will fall on people who are vitally affected in their homes and businesses by reason of their proximity to the airport.
I hope that the properties to be acquired in connection with the extension of the airport will be dealt with expeditiously; that there will be no delay in informing persons whose properties are to be acquired about what is their fate and that the compensation which will be paid to them may be on as generous a scale as the law makes possible in existing conditions.
There is also the problem that arises in connection with properties on the fringe of the development area which may lie just outside the present limits of the land proposed to be acquired for the development and expansion of the airport. Many of those properties will become quite impossible of continued occupation for their present purposes, and it would seem to be right and proper that these houses and businesses should be acquired, and that the owners should be compensated as fairly as the present state of the law permits.
There is one final point to which I wish to refer in this connection, and that is the silence, as I understand it, of the White

Paper about the most important references in the report and recommendations of Sir Colin Campbell, who conducted the public inquiry into the Government's proposals regarding this airport. In paragraph 285, Sir Colin Campbell says:
If on this basis the compensation proves to be inadequate, the payment of an ex gratia sum should be considered.
In the following paragraph he refers to the same theme, when he says again:
I suggest that in proper cases the hardship should be minimised by ex gratia payments.
I can find no reference to this recommendation in the White Paper, and I hope that the Minister will tell us whether it is proposed, in suitable cases of hardship, to make these ex gratia payments as recommended by the very eminent gentleman who conducted the inquiry.
In conclusion, I wish to say a word about the present attitude of the Surrey County Council as the town planning authority, as the proposals must now be accepted as having been adopted by the Government for implementation. I cannot do better than refer to the concluding phrase used by counsel for the county council in his speech at the end of the inquiry. He said:
If, at the end of all things, contrary to our view, we should fail, and the decision was taken to put this airport here, the county council, for whom I have the honour to appear, would loyally co-operate in that decision and do their best to make it work.
We have in no way altered our view of the objections to this proposal, but I have much pleasure in repeating tonight the undertaking given by learned counsel. I assure the Minister that any help which can be given in making these proposals a success, whereby they may contribute to the future prosperity of civil aviation in this country, will be gladly and willingly forthcoming from the local authorities concerned.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the ramifications of Gatwick Airport, because I wish to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to some other airports.
I was particularly interested when the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the Air Transport Advisory Council. He said that it had done a splendid job during


the year; and that it had made recommendations in 118 cases, of which 75 had been agreed. I was interested when he spoke about the major loss of B.E.A, being sustained on the internal routes north of London, and I have listened to the references which have been made to helicopter development.
I suppose that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, and, indeed, the Air Transport Advisory Council, feel that, having secured these 75 recommendations, they can now preen themselves that they determine the pattern of air services in this country, and between this country and the Continent. But they do not, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows perfectly well. Having gone to the Air Transport Advisory Council; having secured the blessing of the Minister, applicants then have to run the gauntlet of the Treasury. Unless the Treasury decides that airports are to have Customs facilities, all the work of the Air Transport Advisory Council and the right hon. Gentleman goes by the board. So does some part of the work of B.E.A., because on page 43 of its report B.E.A. states:
A number of domestic and internal services for independent operators has been approved, in some instances with the support of B.E.A., such as those to the Channel Islands on the peak summer week-ends when there is room for more capacity than B.E.A. can offer.
I wish to mention one airport where, in 1953, three separate licences were granted for a period of seven years to run one internal service and two to places over the water. Again, in 1954, two further licences were issued for one year each for two services across the English Channel. After the 1953 licences had been granted, the Town Clerk of the County Borough of West Hartlepool, the owners of the aerodrome at Greatham, made an application for "on call" Customs, which was turned down early in May, 1953. The right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the present Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation saw a deputation, and Customs were eventually sanctioned on 1st June, 1953.
Half the season had gone, but in spite of that there were 160 flights from that aerodrome that summer not requiring Customs clearance and 46 requiring Customs clearance; as against only 80 flights in 1952 and 30 in 1951. Towards

the end of 1953 the town clerk made an application for the renewal of "on call" Customs for the 1954 season. Because no reply had been received by the beginning of February, I was asked by the council to intervene. I wrote to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and he replied on 26th February:
The special privilege which Greatham has enjoyed during the past few years is quite out of keeping with the practice in the rest of the country and while it lasts there is a discrimination against other airports to which similar privileges have been denied.
He then said:
As you know, foreign-going aircraft would still be able to operate from Greatham provided that they obtained Customs clearance at an authorised airport en route, e.g., at Woolsington.
I do not know how conversant the present Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is with the geography of this country, but he ought to know that Woolsington is 40 miles north of Greatham and that the flights were to take place in a southerly direction. That means that he was asking the aircraft to travel approximately a further 80 miles to get Customs clearance. It was stated that this would have involved an extra 1¼ hours on each trip with the aircraft which they were proposing to operate, and, consequently, an additional cost for each trip of from £75 to £80.
The deputation saw the Financial Secretary to the Treasury again on 18th March, and on 15th April he replied as follows:
As I understand, there were in all 48 aircraft cleared by Customs at Greatham last year and the total revenue collected was, as I told you, in round figures £30.
Apparently, therefore, the needs of an area—there are nearly 750,000 people living within 20 miles of Greatham Airport—and the development of air services in this country, and from this country to the Continent, are, in future, to be determined by the amount of revenue collected by Customs officers from people who attempt to bring contraband into the country. I shall show in a moment that that small figure showed a profit on the 1953 operation.
On 1st June, another deputation from the industrial and commercial interests on Tees-side met the present Colonial Secretary. On 21st July, I asked the


Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation—now the Colonial Secretary—when the deputation from the Tees-side organisations which had met him on 1st June in connection with Greatham Airport could expect a reply to their representation. I want the House to note the Minister's reply, because I think it is important. He said:
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have been fully into the representations made to me on 1st June, and I regret to say that the Government must now reaffirm that they cannot see their way to altering their decision that Customs facilities at Greatham Aerodrome cannot be renewed. We have only just reached this conclusion, after giving every consideration to the weighty arguments advanced by the important delegation that came to see me, and I am replying in these terms to the letter from the Tees-side Development Board.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) then asked the right hon. Gentleman a supplementary question. He said:
Is the right hon. Gentleman now announcing a new Government policy—that the question of whether or not there are to be overseas services from an important industrial area is to be determined by the convenience of the Board of Customs and Excise and not by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation?
The Minister replied:
No, Sir. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there have been Customs facilities for some experimental years. Had the traffic offering been such as to justify the full-time employment of Customs officers a very different decision would have been arrived at. The traffic offering has not justified it, and in view of the need for strict scrutiny of all public expenditure the Government have arrived at this decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1342–43.]
On 29th July last, I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what was
the total cost to the Customs Department in overtime and additional payments for the provision of officers at Greatham Airport to clear arriving and departing aircraft in the year 1953; and what proportion of such sum was recovered by the Customs Department from the aircraft operators.
I hope that the Minister will listen to the answer I received, because I think it important. The reply was given by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, and it was:
£76 12s, 5d. and £72 9s. 0d. respectively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 81–2.]
In other words, the cost to the Treasury of providing Customs facilities at Greatham in 1953 amounted to a total

of £4 3s. 5d. On this basis, even the £30 collected from people attempting to bring contraband into the country gives the Government a substantial profit.
The present Colonial Secretary said that it was necessary to consider strict economy in public expenditure. I would tell the right hon. Gentleman tonight that from figures which I have obtained from the treasurer of the local authority responsible, it is costing that authority £3,000 a year to keep this airport on a care and maintenance basis. In other words, to avoid an approximate expenditure of £5 in overtime and additional payments to Customs officers at Middlesbrough, Stockton and West Hartlepool the right hon. Gentleman is now imposing a cost of £3,000 a year on this local authority to keep this airfield idle.
On 19th October, I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
How many of the Customs staff at Middlesbrough, Stockton and West Hartlepool have been displaced in consequence of the withdrawal of on-call Customs from the Greatham Aerodrome.
He replied:
The withdrawal of the on-call facilities from Greatham Aerodrome has not led to the displacement of any Customs staff at the places named, but has eliminated the disturbance of the normal Customs work at these ports which the temporary and experimental provision of the facilities at Greatham entails."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1954; 531, c. 150.]
In spite of all that is being done, we have now, apparently, to determine the pattern of the air services from this country and any attempt to expand the civil aviation industry by the inconvenience which is caused to Customs officers. I have every reason to believe that the local people on the job would welcome the disturbance, and that it is somewhere very much higher in the hierarchy that this question of disturbance arises.
Much has been said in this debate about the development of the helicopter. Quite recently, Sir Miles Thomas wrote an article in which he called attention to the development of aeroplane and helicopter design, and suggested that small landing places at or near the centre of large towns would be the necessary landing grounds of the future. I was interested to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say, about helicopter development, that he could give an assurance on behalf of his right hon. Friend that when


helicopter development had gone sufficiently far there would be no hindrance to the provision of the necessary landing facilities at or near the large towns.
Is this the way in which the Government intend to treat local authorities which attempt to establish airfields? The West Hartlepool Town Council has spent more than £50,000 to date in capital expenditure on this aerodrome, and is now having to pay £3,000 a year to keep the aerodrome in idleness merely because to do otherwise would inconvenience somebody at the Treasury. The Government cannot argue that it is not a profitable venture. Last year the income was six times as great as the expenditure. I hope that we shall get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman tonight that if, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, it is the Government's desire to develop the pattern of air services in this country, they will do something to break down this antiquated attitude of the Customs.
In conclusion, I wish to call attention to an article which appeared last week in "Modern Transport." The article deals with the whole problem of Customs and freight transport by air. The Customs authorities are asked to modernise their attitude so far as the provision of facilities for air transport is concerned and the article concluded with these words:
A cogent point concerns the unwillingness to provide Customs facilities at additional airports whereas preventive officers are still scattered around the coasts in a most liberal manner. Air freight grows steadily in importance and it is essential that it should not be hampered by inflexible requirements. The Air League has done well to call attention to that danger.
In conclusion, if the Minister wants to encourage local authorities in this country to develop airfields, then he had better make quite certain that the attitude of Customs and Excise is brought up to modern standards and that it improves the antiquated attitude which it is now adopting and which should immediately be supplanted by more modern methods. Otherwise, whatever the Air Transport Advisory Council or the Minister think should be the pattern of air travel to the Continent, Customs and Excise will decide it.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I gather that there are just 10 minutes before the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) wants to start his winding-up speech, and I should like briefly to refer to a few points. I wish to associate myself with the praise that has been expressed for the cabin services offered by the corporations. Like other Members, I have had the opportunity from time to time of travelling by other airlines, and I can truthfully say I have never had a standard of service comparable with that given by B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. They are very wise to keep up this standard, because there are large numbers of passengers to whom service is of paramount importance and travel by our national airlines for that very reason.
That leads me to wonder if the Minister is not very wise in making a difference between the independent operators and the national corporations. Government policy decided freight and trooping for the independents and regular scheduled passenger traffic for the corporations. The treatments of these three different types of load are absolutely different. I wonder whether, if the corporations started to handle these trooping contracts and the freight, they might not, as it were, lower the standard and depreciate the courtesy and politeness which at present their cabin staff is giving to all passengers on these services.
At this late hour I do not want to join to any great extent in this controversy about the future of the Britannia and the DC-7D. I do not question—I am not in a position to question—the wisdom of the corporations, but I do question the timing. It does seem to me that the year forecast for the delivery of this aircraft, 1958 or 1959, is optimistic. I see that "Aviation Week," which is a very well informed American journal, suggests that 1960 will be the earliest possible delivery date. If that is so, it would seem an extraordinary moment to make this decision. "Aviation Week" of 18th October makes this observation:
A B.O.A.C. deal with Douglas will require the official approval of the British government and is certain to raise a political storm in Parliament as it would deal a heavy blow to the already battered hopes of British aircraft manufacturers in the international market.


This is an extraordinary forecast of a debate which took place four weeks later in this House of Commons. I am not asking for any clear statement about the position this evening, but I ask whether we ought not to delay the decision, at least until the new engine, the Rolls-Royce RB 109, has had an opportunity of flying. At the moment, it is only being assembled on the test bed and is unlikely to fly before the 1955 Farnborough Display at the earliest. That would be an appropriate moment to see if we should agree to this insurance policy of allowing B.O.A.C. to order 10 of these aircraft which will cost a total of about 25 million dollars.
It is very difficult indeed for the aircraft industry of this country to be successful in the export markets if the corporations lose faith in their aircraft. Everyone who tries to sell overseas knows that if one is dealing in military equipment the first question one is asked is, "Does the R.A.F. use it?" If one says that the R.A.F. does not use it, one is asked, "Why not?" It is difficult to laugh that off and explain why. Exactly the same question is put in the civil aviation market. One is asked, "Do B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. use it?" If one replies, "Well, they do, but they have ordered other aircraft," then one is told, "Surely they must have had good reason," and one's chance of doing business with the export of aircraft is greatly lessened.
To some extent, the British aircraft industry has been put in the dock in this debate. The industry is in no way in a comparable position with the United States aircraft industry. Firstly, in the United States there is a tremendous internal demand which we do not have here. Secondly, every single successful series of United States civil aircraft is supported with a very substantial military order. Take the DC series from DC-4 to DC-7. That was underwritten by tremendous military orders. Constellation series had exactly the same treatment. The Boeing 707, a new jet transport, is rumoured to have military orders between 40 to 80 aircraft. Therefore, if we are going to compare the merits of the two aircraft industries, I hope that those two factors will be taken into consideration. I wonder whether

the Minister and his advisers will not have to think out a policy again, if we are to compete with the Americans with these dice loaded against us.
I want to say a word about B.E.A. which has not been mentioned to the same extent as B.O.A.C. We have had some argument as to whether they are public services or whether they are purely commercial services. I would suggest that the economic factors alone should not be the only consideration. If the public are to get what they want in air transport, they want to be able to have frequent services at different times of the day in comparatively small aircraft. It may be more economical to operate aircraft which have 100 seats, but if one has to wait five or six hours before one can get the aircraft to keep a business appointment, the value to the public is greatly lessened.
On Wednesday next I want to travel to Zurich on business. There is no Zurich service other than once a day by Viscount, which is a very comfortable service, but which is too late for my business appointment. I would have to take an aircraft travelling on the previous day, which is impossible as there is an important debate in this House which I have to attend. That must happen times without number, and I hope that B.E.A. will remember that the bus is a better example of public service than the train. Frequent aircraft of small capacity are far more valuable to people trying to keep business appointments.
I want to make one last point. I would urge a little more co-operation between B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. In the past that may have been difficult, because the two had different terminal airports. But, now that B.E.A. has moved into London Airport, there could be more co-operation in things like aircraft meal and restaurant services, and perhaps in medical services and in freight handling and bus transport from London. Surely there is room for co-operation in these fields. Perhaps, also, B.E.A. could lend some of its Viscounts in the off-season—the winter season—to some of B.O.A.C.'s subsidiaries operating in warm climates, like the Aden airways or the British West Indian airways, where these aircraft could add to the prestige of and earn valuable money for both B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: After all that has been said in this debate, I think that my principal function will be to supply the Minister with an aidemémoire so that some of the more awkward questions shall not escape his notice. I must congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his opening speech. It was a model of complacency. I only hope that the Government's complacency will have disappeared before the Minister replies to the debate. It would seem that the Government have been under fire from both sides, although from rather differing points of view.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) referred to the greater degree of co-operation which there now is between the two corporations. I made some inquiries about that some time ago, as I thought that they were rather far apart. I understand that there is constant and regular consultation between the corporations, and that it takes place at a very high level.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Too high.

Mr. Pargiter: It seems that steps have been taken which will make for closer co-operation there.
The Parliamentary Secretary's complacency was badly shaken by the reference which my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) made to the very heavy cost to the public purse in supplying aircraft either directly through the Ministry of Supply or indirectly through the corporations. Those are matters to which we must ask the Minister to direct attention. Compared with the American aircraft industry ours is relatively small, but we have almost as many private companies engaged in manufacture as they have in America. From that we can see just how thinly our design staff must be spread, as compared with the concentration of effort there is in the United States. In spite of what may be said of America one must admire the way in which the Americans put everything they have into solving a problem. For that purpose they have huge pools of highly-skilled design staff. They take each their own little corner of the problem and concentrate on it.
That is something to which the Minister could turn his attention, probably in conjunction with the Minister of Supply—because it is a joint problem. After all,

public money is expended and something should be done. I should be very glad to support a proposal for an inquiry into the general structure of the aircraft industry; not critical in the destructive, but in the constructive, sense that we really ought to use our technical staff to the best possible advantage. The only way our industry will survive is to attend to that and not to spread itself as it does at present.
The discussion, inevitably, has got rather away from the ostensible cause for the debate—the accounts of the two corporations. I think that we can say to B.E.A. that, while appreciating its difficulties we ask it not to be too complacent. With the new types of aircraft B.E.A. is now operating we expect better results. I gather that one of the major causes of its losses has been the rapid introduction of almost indiscriminate tourist rates, which meant a reduction of about 8½ per cent. in its revenue.
We do not know how many passengers it carried as a result of the cheaper fares, so it is difficult to marry it up. Nevertheless, I think that B.E.A. may be congratulated because, while it has had to face this new feature and has had an increasing flow of passengers, it has, according to the report, managed to reduce operating costs by 6 per cent. That is a fairly good achievement, but it might well imply that it could still further study the problem with a view to making further reductions.
Another factor of importance to B.E.A. is that it carries mail at a rate much lower than that of B.O.A.C. I do not know why that should be—unless it has something to do with the distance which B.E.A. has to carry the mail—but I should have thought that it might be possible for it to have an equal rate. The result would possibly be considerably to minimise its losses. What we do recognise is it its very great safety record—over 1,600,000 passengers carried without a single accident. That is a very high tribute to the corporation in this past year.
The introduction of new aircraft is expensive, and B.E.A., during the past year or so, has had its share of that. I understand—though this, of course, will be subject to confirmation—that its present position is much more promising than it was at this time last year. In the first six months of this year it has made


a net profit approximately three times that made in the similar period last year. That is all very encouraging, but the trouble with B.E.A. is that it loses rather more in the winter than it makes in the summer. We must ask the Minister, with the corporation, to see how far that winter loss may be minimised.
In passing, it is interesting to note that B.E.A. anticipates that its losses next year will be not much more than the Treasury collects in fuel tax, so the question of the cost of fuel tax to the internal airlines might well be examined. It is a matter to which we have constantly drawn attention. It seems to bear very unfairly on the internal, as against the external, operator, who is, of course, not subject to the same cost.
There is a reference in the report to the type of vehicles now being used for carrying passengers by road. Were the vehicles only able to get along as rapidly as would be the case on clear roads we should not hear so much about the time taken in the journey to the airport. Nevertheless, the vehicles are a very good advertisement for B.E.A.—one of the best it has—going through the streets of London. I do not think they are quite so good an advertisement when held up by traffic blocks—a matter which we might ask the Minister, in his other capacity, to investigate.
A good deal has been said about a possible order for American aircraft for B.O.A.C., but that must be looked at in perspective. B.O.A.C. is to be congratulated on not having materially lost passenger traffic because of the grounding of the Comet, but it has had to switch aircraft.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Except on the British South-American route.

Mr. Pargiter: It had to divert aircraft from the British South-American route. It is a fact that it cost approximately £600,000 a year to keep going its establishments in South-America — with nothing coming back. No organisation can view that sort of thing with indifference, and if the Corporation has to wait another two, three or four years for Britannia aircraft it will surely not be blamed if it looks round for other types. Quite apart from its long-term plan, the corporation's urgent need is for more aircraft now.
I thought that the telegram which was read out by the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Sir R. Perkins) was rather extraordinary. It was to the effect that if B.O.A.C. go on with these negotiations now it is as good as closing the shop as far as the Britannia is concerned. Good heavens, what a record! A company with the proud name of the Bristol Aeroplane Company Limited is so afraid, even of negotiations, that it says that if they go on it is tantamount, so far as that company is concerned, to shutting the shop.
I should hardly have thought that, however bad its straits, the company could scarcely claim that negotiations with America would have that effect. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. It must be borne in mind that, even if B.O.A.C. buy American aircraft, not a single order for the Britannia is likely to be reduced. If the argument is to be that there will be fewer overseas orders, the reply is that, in the long run, overseas people will buy the aircraft that is best for the job. It will not be a question of how or where they are operating; it will only be a question that they will buy the best and safest aircraft with which they can do the job, irrespective of what B.O.A.C. may think.
So we should not be too alarmed by some of these alarmist telegrams from certain quarters. It seems to me that the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury and the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) were engaging in some special pleading, because, when we consider the arguments upon which their case was based, we find that they are fallacious. We have been talking about all the changes in the Britannia, but the changes were made necessary because of the delay in introducing the Britannia, and because other aircraft were ahead of it. The first Britannia would not do the job for which B.O.A.C. wanted it—the trans-continental services. Therefore it had to be modified.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. As I said in my speech, the original aircraft ordered was to carry from 32 to 38 passengers, powered with piston engines to B.O.A.C. specification.

Mr. Pargiter: That was not the argument. The argument was that, whether it was the type of aircraft which


B.O.A.C. wanted or not, it did not conform to the minimum requirements for trans-continental planes. Therefore, changes had to be made, and it was not a question of pressure by B.O.A.C. The aircraft was already out of date, and it had to be altered. There have been subsequent modifications because the aircraft was out of date, and, if they do not get something into the air very soon, it will be still further out of date, and that is the challenge to the Bristol Aeroplane Company.
When we consider the BE 25 against the DC-7D with the RB 109 engine, the BE 25 will in any case be a much later production. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] These are the facts of the case. I am sorry that I cannot give way any more, because I want to leave time for the Minister to reply to the debate.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is making wild statements which may do great damage to British industry. He should support his statements with specific facts.

Mr. Pargiter: My facts are probably as good as those of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The House itself will decide. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, anyway.
I now want to turn to one or two particular factors regarding the operations of the companies. It might be interesting, in passing, to refer to the fact that the company which was encouraged and pushed into applying for the freight service over the North Atlantic—I say pushed into it advisedly, because it was a very long time applying, and did not apply until B.O.A.C. said that it could not wait any longer—found that it was easily possible to find the necessary dollars to enable it to buy American aircraft to operate the freight service. I wonder that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not get up in righteous indignation on finding out that this private company wanted to buy American aircraft——

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing rose——

Mr. Pargiter: I cannot give way. I am speaking of what I understand to be the facts; and dollars are not readily available for B.O.A.C.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Surely the hon. Gentleman will recollect that B.O.A.C. bought very large numbers of American aircraft, and has done so even this year. Throughout almost every year since the war, it has bought both aircraft and spares.

Mr. Pargiter: It had to buy the aircraft to keep the routes going. It was a case of force majeure. It had no opportunity to do otherwise, and it bought second-hand aircraft which were to compete with new aircraft which the Americans were operating. The fact that they did it so successfully reflects very great credit upon the corporation.
Incidentally, were the dollars made so readily available to the corporation? As a matter of fact, it had to go to its associated companies in order to use their dollar availability, so that it does not look as if there was very much readiness on the part of the Treasury to offer dollars as far as B.O.A.C. were concerned. If the corporation now has again to purchase American aircraft, which is something in which none of us takes any delight but which is necessary to retain the international traffic which is has won, at least it should be able to say that there are no British aircraft capable of helping it.
There is another point at which I would like to ask the Minister to look. I understand that there are some difficulties in Bermuda in connection with an associated company of B.O.A.C.—British West Indian Airways—which is now operating old aircraft. The proposal is that it should be allowed to use Viscounts, but I understand that the Bermuda people are not taking very kindly to this proposal but are creating some obstruction, because B.O.A.C. wants these aircraft to enable it to get into the profitable American traffic, which it cannot do with its existing aircraft. Will the Minister look into this and, through other channels, smooth out the way for the use of better and more modern aircraft? If so, it will be to the great advantage of British prestige and the corporation's dollar-earning capacity.
I now wish to refer to trooping contracts. We are not asking for first-class Stratocruiser services for troops and their families; we are not even asking for tourist services. What we are asking for is that good aircraft now standing at


London Airport, which will provide far more comfortable journeys for our troops and their families, should be used in preference to the continued use of the York aircraft. I am not decrying the York aircraft, but, in comparing the unpressurised York with the Hermes, and even allowing for the higher cost of operation, I cannot see that there is any reason at all why the Services should continue to place orders for trooping with York aircraft when there are Hermes aircraft which could be used.
I think that the present position is disgraceful. If private companies are not prepared to buy the Hermes aircraft and use them, surely, B.O.A.C. ought to be allowed to enter the field and use these planes for this work? Many times in this House we say that only the best is good enough for our troops, and this is a time when we can ask, not for the best or even the second best, but for the third best to be made available for the carriage of our troops and their families overseas.
I therefore ask the Minister seriously to consider this problem. The aircraft are still there, and yet the Service Departments are still placing their contracts while the Hermes aircraft are not being used. As it is obvious that private companies are not going to buy the Hermes aircraft, surely, we must allow the corporation to enter into the trooping contracts field; in fact, it is of vital importance that it should be allowed to do so.
May I now refer to a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) about Renfrew Airport. This airport is a valuable base, where a very fine maintenance depot with an efficient staff has been built up. We should not regard with any pleasure the prospect of it being closed down. I understand that the private companies are about to form an engineering company to take over the facilities which B.E.A. have established there. This may only be a rumour, but it is certainly in the minds of the men who are working there, because they are saying, "Having built up this organisation here, why get rid of it? Why not let it continue to operate and allow private companies to take their planes there to be serviced, and allow B.E.A. to do the servicing, rather than set up a separate company?"
This separate company may be outside the general agreement covering employment in the civil aviation industry, and there could be some difficulty there. It would be an act of bad faith towards the people employed there if the present set-up were abolished and their conditions were thereby worsened. I would ask the Minister to consider this, because it may be a matter of some importance.
We have congratulated the corporations. I hope that those congratulations extend to the whole of the staffs. I am sure they are intended to, but I think it should be made perfectly clear that they are, because the corporations could not have maintained the positions that they have had it not been for the loyal co-operation they have had from their staffs. From what I have seen of members of the staffs I should say that they are all keen on the job, keen to make British civil aviation the best in the world. That they are succeeding so well is indicated by the fact that, notwithstanding our unfortunate experience with the Comet, there has been virtually no falling off in the amount of the trans-Continental traffic that our services carry. That is a matter for congratulation, and I am sure that the Minister will want to pay tribute to the staffs for what they have done.
It is time that we had from the Government a statement on whether the internal air services are to be regarded as a social service, qualifying for subsidy; or whether, alternatively, they are to pay their way. We have had this question of the cost of internal air route operation so long before us that we are entitled now to obtain from the Government a statement of their intentions.
The debate has served a most useful purpose. It has drawn attention to the fact that we have in these two nationalised bodies two of which the country may well be proud. In spite of the attempts that have been made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to whittle away some of the benefits of these nationalised bodies, so that private companies may make profits, it still remains true that the basis of British civil aviation is the two corporations. The attempts made from time to time to take away some part of their profitability are not in their best interests or in the best interests of British civil aviation, and I


hope that we may see a reversal of that process. I am one of those who firmly believe in the future of the two nationalised corporations, and I am sure that, irrespective of party, we wish them continued success.

7.33 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I agree with the concluding words of the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), that this has been a useful and helpful debate; and one useful not only to the House but to those outside it who are concerned in the very responsible work of managing the corporations, and, indeed, in the wider sphere of British aviation. As I said a fortnight ago in opening a debate of somewhat similar character, I often think that these "take note" debates are among the most useful we have in this House, because they seem to succeed in eliciting a wide variety of useful experience and opinion from both sides of the House which is of very real practical value.
The House may not be aware that this debate has had the rather unusual feature of having been opened by a Member, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is himself mentioned in one of the reports of which we are asked to take note. Reference is made in the B.E.A.C's. Report of the Viscount flight to New Zealand, in which my hon. Friend participated. He, therefore, had the somewhat unusual experience of asking the House to take note of a report which referred to himself. It is characteristic of his modesty that he did not mention it.
I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) for his very agreeable personal references, and I agree with him and with the hon. Member for Southall that it is proper to pay a very high tribute to the management and staffs of all grades and levels of the corporations in respect of the work of the year to which these reports relate. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Southall said, that the not inconsiderable achievements of both the corporations could not have been made had they not been loyally served from top to bottom by extremely keen and efficient staffs. We are conscious of the fact that (as the hon. Member for Uxbridge himself said, these corporations are exposed to very direct and intense commercial competition.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge for his reference to the Gatwick project, and because he was good enough to make it clear that, though the matter was considered for a very considerable length of time, it was wholly unfair to suggest that anybody concerned in it was acting in a prejudiced or obscurantist way, or indeed had any other concern than to do the right thing in what was a rather difficult situation. I realise that a Surrey Member can be acquitted of any particular prejudice in the matter, at any rate in the direction in which it fell to me finally to take the decision.
I was grateful in this context to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black), whose speech I missed, but which was reported to me, with his usual accuracy, by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I very much appreciate, and I think the House appreciates, the attitude he indicated was being taken by the Surrey County Council in most properly, and in the exercise of its undoubted rights, expressing its views at the formative stage, and I think the attitude which, as my hon. Friend indicated, it is now adopting is exactly what one would expect of a local authority of its very high standing and repute.
As I have mentioned Gatwick, let me now deal with my hon. Friend's reference to the difficulties of the people living near the proposed airport. In particular, he asked us to proceed expeditiously with the proposals outlined in the White Paper. Now that the decision has been taken, we shall certainly do our best to proceed as speedily as possible. I fully appreciate the uncertainty, which he voiced, which must hang over the people immediately concerned until precise and detailed proposals are known to them.
I propose to deal as speedily as I can with a number of the very large number of individual points which have been put before I return to one or two of what, I hope without discourtesy to the others, I can describe as the major issues arising in this debate. I ought, however, at this stage to make it clear that, as the House will appreciate, the considerable number of questions which have been raised with respect to the production of aircraft and the activities of the British aircraft industry, and the encouragement to be given to various types of aircraft, are, of course, matters within the responsibility of the Minister of Supply.
As the House will have seen, my right hon. and learned Friend has been present throughout the greater part of the debate, and all who know him will also know that, with his usual keenness of mind, he has taken note of the points that have been made. I say this only because it may otherwise seem discourteous if I do not deal with some of the points that have been put; but, as they fall in my right hon. and learned Friend's responsibility, I think it would be better if I left it in this way, that my right hon. and learned Friend has paid attention to what has been said and, I have no doubt, has been suitably impressed.
Let me deal with some of the individual issues. I take first the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge about the aerodrome at Kuwait. The hon. Member asked what was the position about the maintenance of that airport. Kuwait being a protected territory under the Chicago Convention, the maintenance of the airport is the responsibility of this country. It costs, by way of maintenance, £25,000 a year, £15,000 of which is reimbursed in landing fees.

Mr. Beswick: What I had in mind was the capital cost of the new airfield.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have not those figures with me, but, if they are available, I will see that they are furnished to the hon. Gentleman. I understood that he was inquiring about the present costs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) referred to the better relations which, as indeed appears from the reports, now exist between the corporations and the independent operators. Whatever view hon. Members may take of the proper distribution of work between the corporations and the independent operators, I have no doubt whatever that all hon. Members will agree that these improved relations are a satisfactory feature. They indicate a better atmosphere, which must make for more efficient working for British aviation generally. It is very much to the credit of all concerned that those relations should have been so substantially improved in a quite limited space of time.
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) thought he was

going out of order by referring to certain matters which were the responsibility of my Department and not of the corporation. In fact, the hon. Member had the rather unusual experience of being more in order than he thought—my experience is always the other way round, I admit—because the buses to which he referred are operated by the corporations and are therefore fully within the ambit of the report.
I was interested in what the hon. Member said about buses outside the corporations' control—Green Line—and if I do not myself stray out of order at this point, I should like to tell him that I have taken note of it and will see whether anything can be done about it. I agree with him that it is extremely important that, when people have flown to London Airport at high speed, they should not squander some of the time which they have gained by an undue delay because of the arrangements on the airport and between the airport and the centre of the city. I am grateful to the hon. Member for having brought out the point as clearly as he did.
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) raised, not for the first time between himself and myself, the question of the provision of Customs facilities, in particular at Greatham Airport. I am sure all hon. Members will appreciate the pertinacity, not to say from time to time the pugnacity, with which he has fought this matter, and I am sure that, had pertinacity and pugnacity been capable of achieving success, he would have achieved it.
He was, however, perhaps a little less than fair to the point of view which it used to be my duty to put to him. The point in respect to the provision of Customs facilities is this: not whether, as a matter of fact, it is possible to provide those facilities at a particular place at a particular time without undue expenditure, but whether the whole general system of providing Customs facilities at airports, or for that matter at seaports, should be fair as between one airport or seaport and another; and unless some general standard of qualification for the provision of those facilities is laid down and adhered to, the hon. Member will, I think, appreciate that there will be unfairness in respect of what is quite a valuable monetary consideration between one airport and another.

Mr. D. Jones: That is precisely the point I am trying to make. This rigid pattern is applied to the country, irrespective of the circumstances, and there is far greater hardship in some parts of the country than in others. The whole of the North-East has one airport with Customs facilities. On Tees-side, within 20 miles of Greatham Airport, three-quarters of a million people are living. Two of the biggest industrial concerns in the country axe within five miles of the airport. When he was Financial Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the only way in which people could travel from Tees-side to somewhere outside these islands was to fly 40 miles to the north, come down for Customs facilities, and then take off and fly 40 miles back again before starting on their legitimate journey. That seems to be completely out of keeping with modern trends. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to develop the air traffic of this country, he should get the Treasury to look into this matter again.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member is well up to form on the subject. Let me take his point: in the first place, he brushes aside the question of equity and fairness in the provision of financially valuable facilities. I cannot do that. Secondly, he somewhat understated the suggestion which was made at the time, which was that aircraft could either go to the Customs facilities at Woolsington or, if southbound, could call at Northolt, which was then open.
The third point, which the hon. Member overlooks, is the very low level of foreign-going traffic operating from Greatham while the facilities were provided and the fact that these facilities were provided on the clear understanding that it was to be as an experiment to see whether the traffic was adequate.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) raised, as one would expect from them, a number of Scottish issues. They both referred to the B.E.A. maintenance base at Renfrew. The hon. Member for Tradeston, part of whose speech I was sorry to miss—I know he will acquit me of any discourtesy—suggested the appointment of a further assessor. As he will appreciate,

in the first place this is a matter for the commercial management of B.E.A.
The hon. Member will no doubt recall that when B.E.A. decided on the appointment of an assessor, they suggested that he should be jointly appointed by them and the trade unions concerned, but the trade unions concerned felt unable to agree to that. In the circumstances, I very much doubt whether it would be useful to suggest to B.E.A. the appointment of a further assessor, particularly as the assessor appointed was a very distinguished Edinburgh accountant whose professional skill and complete impartiality are, I think, beyond dispute.

Mr. Rankin: I do not think there was any dispute about the need for an assessor. The dispute resolved itself around the terms of reference which were to be given to the proposed independent assessor, and on that the negotiations broke down. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that point?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Of course, I will look into any point which the hon. Member puts to me. The terms of reference were to investigate whether the figures of economies which B.E.A. thought they would obtain were well-founded or not. I think the matter was a dispute between them and certain of the Scottish trade unions.
I will certainly look at any figure which the hon. Member is prepared to send to me, and perhaps I should say that I have agreed that, before any decision is taken, I will see representatives of the Scottish T.U.C. and other Scottish bodies. I have suggested to them that it might be convenient if we met at Renfrew on 26th November. In the circumstances, the hon. Member will understand it if I do not say more on that subject.
Apart from this subject, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll dealt with the possibility of using helicopters in the Highlands and Islands. The helicopter could clearly serve a useful purpose, but the difficulty in using it at the moment is that there is no satisfactory twin-engined model available, and there are certain difficulties about using a single-engined model in these circumstances. As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out earlier in the debate, helicopter operation is not inexpensive, and


fares might prove to be higher than if the proposed twin Pionair were developed and used in a similar manner.

Major McCallum: This summer a single-engined helicopter flew the whole length of Scotland, even as far as Shetland, and took some officials to Fair Isle. A single-engined helicopter therefore can be operated, and I cannot understand why it is always suggested that it would come down.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not suggest that it will, always come down. I flew in one this summer and it did not come down—until it descended in the normal course of events. Perhaps that is a tribute to its load-carrying capacity.
I am saying that for the development of passenger operations there is a good body of opinion which, for the helicopter as for winged aircraft, has a preference for twin engines, for the obvious reason that if one engine fails there is another to keep one up. There is also the factor of expense to be faced, and helicopter operation, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary indicated in giving the approximate fares for the fairly short run which he quoted, is a not inexpensive matter.
I now turn from these admittedly important matters to one of two which featured more generally in the course of the debate. There was reference by a number of hon. Members who were understandably anxious about the possibility that B.O.A.C. might find it necessary to equip itself with a number of future American aircraft. As one hon. Member opposite said, whichever way one looks at it, this is a matter of "serious decision."
There are extremely important considerations on either side. There is the need for B.O.A.C. to secure that it is properly and competitively equipped. That is a matter which naturally and properly looms very large in the minds of those responsible for operating a great trading corporation. There is equally the natural concern of those in a very great industry as to the effect of such a decision on the prospect and future of that industry and on this country's leading long-distance airline.
No decision on this matter has been taken, and I can only say that I have listened to the very widely-conflicting

views which have been expressed this afternoon. One hon. Member asked that the decision should be taken, and that when it was taken the widest considerations should be borne in mind, and clearly that will have to be so. I think that it would be wrong for me, having made clear to the House how important are the considerations on both sides, to start committing myself to opinions which perhaps, I ought not lightly to express at this moment.
I think that the House will understand and forgive me if I do not seek to follow the arguments which may be deployed for and against this course by a number of hon. Members, all of whom, I am sure, are concerned, as we are, to secure in this difficult but important matter that a decision will be taken which is in the highest interests of aviation in this country.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when the decision will be taken, because there is great suspense hanging over the heads of everyone concerned?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would not like to tie myself to a date on a matter on which there will have to be a good deal of consideration and consultation, but my hon. and gallant Friend is quite right in saying that uncertainty in this matter is harmful, and no one is more conscious of that than I am.
A good deal of discussion was aroused about what can be done to accelerate development of the Britannia. As I have explained, the development of aircraft is financially the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Supply, but it may perhaps be of some reassurance to the House if I remind hon. Members of certain words spoken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) a few days ago at the inquiry proceeding at Church House. In the course of a statement which, as he indicated, he had been authorised to make, he said:
As you have heard, the whole of the country's technical resources can already be made available to the Board"—
that is the Air Registration Board—
on the problems facing the aircraft designers and the Board.
He indicated that the resources of information and knowledge available in this country would be fully deployed in


connection with the testing of new aircraft, and it may be that in this way we shall be able to meet the apprehensions which some hon. Members expressed as to the future development of these aircraft.
It is also fair to say that B.O.A.C. has taken considerable part in flying tests and has been very helpful in this matter. Obviously, everyone concerned—there can be no clash of views as to this—is anxious that these aircraft and all other new types should be successfully developed as quickly as they safely can be.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, when tank tests are made for ensuring the reliability of the pressurised cabins of British aircraft, the same tests will also be made in respect of American pressurised aircraft, because there have been some disappearances over the Atlantic and elsewhere of the latest pressurised American aircraft, and it would seem wrong that British aircraft should be subjected to very severe tests if American aircraft are not subjected to the same tests?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Clearly I cannot permit myself to answer that one, particularly when consultation is to take place between the two countries as to the appropriate tests to be applied to each other's aircraft.

Mr. Pargiter: Will the Minister not say that a certificate of air-worthiness will be required to apply equally in both cases?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I went out of my way to say that, as this is a matter which has to be discussed between the two countries—and we have interests both ways—I had better not comment.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge asked me what we proposed to do about the financial position of B.E.A.C. in particular.

Mr. Beswick: Would the right hon. Gentleman say something about the financial cost to the corporation of those Cornet aircraft which it has taken and which it cannot use?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot say something about a matter which is, in the first place, a matter of the relative rights

and responsibilities of important commercial bodies. It is not for me to lay down the law on a matter of that sort. As regards the position of the finances of B.E.A.C, the hon. Member for Uxbridge, having drawn attention to the deficit last year, asked, with some firmness, what we proposed to about it, and he indicated—and I agree with him—that this is a matter of very considerable concern, and that it is, of course, important both that public funds should be preserved so far as possible and that the corporation should be put in a position in which it can operate with increasing solvency.
I feel a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said as to the financial yardstick being one of the tests. I think that there is a great deal of force in what he said. Naturally, we have not been unconcerned about the matter and there are several ways in which I think the position will be improved. In the first place, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is hoped that the increase in the tourist fares on the overseas services will bring in some £400,000 extra.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the internal fares. I am inclined to agree with him that some of these are on the low side, and it may be that some adjustment in that direction might give some financial relief. As the House will appreciate, forecasts are always subject to reservations, but it looks as if the deficit in the current year will be broadly £1 million as against £1¾ million during the past year, which would certainly show a very substantial improvement.
As regards the future, it is, of course, a fact, as stated in this debate more than once, that the losses are largely, if not wholly, due to the operations of the short-haul internal services. Development of new aircraft may very well help to mitigate that. I am thinking again of that helpful development at Prestwick—the Twin Pioneer—and in due course we may have to look at these internal services to see how economically they can be operated.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge suggested, as did several other hon. Members, that it would be better if, instead of there being a general deficit partly resulting from the operation of these internal services, a special subsidy should be given calculated to cover them, rather on an analogy, I gathered, of the payments


made to MacBrayne's. Whatever the merits of that, it is not possible under the Act. Under the Act, which hon. Members opposite themselves passed in 1946, it is clear that there can be only one open subsidy in respect of the deficit, and special payments of that sort are not permitted. Therefore, under present legislation, it is not possible for us in any way to follow up that suggestion, although, as my hon. Friend was good enough to say, it was an interesting suggestion.
The hon. Member referred to trooping. Under the previous Government, trooping was regarded as being largely a matter for the independents. It is, of course, in the charter field, which was laid down by the former Government as an appropriate sphere for the activity of the independents.

Mr. Pargiter: Not exclusively.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, nor is it exclusively so now.

Mr. Beswick: The right hon. Gentleman is now saying—presumably he has been told to say it—something that is quite inaccurate. It was never the policy under the previous Government to prevent the corporations from tendering for air trooping contracts. Under the present Administration, they are not allowed even to tender. That is the situation which we thought to be entirely wrong.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Had the hon. Member allowed me to finish, he would have found that there was little disagreement between us. Let us take it by stages. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman will agree that under the previous Government charter work was regarded as being a proper field for the independents. Trooping is charter work.

Mr. Beswick: Oh, no.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In my view, it clearly is. On that point we must, therefore, differ. Under the present Government it is possible for the corporations to tender for individual trooping trips. Therefore, it is not right for the hon. Member to say that the corporations are barred.

Mr. Beswick: What about long-term trooping contracts?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What the corporations are barred from is the long-term arrangements, because it was under

stood that they would not maintain aircraft kept available for this purpose. I am not saying that the policies of the two Governments are the same, because I think that ours is the better. What I am saying is that it is a development of the policy for which the hon. Gentleman was, in part, responsible.
The proof of the pudding is, however, in the eating. In this respect, as in others, our policy has been to help both the independents and the corporations to develop and expand, and the figures show that that has worked. In load ton miles, the independents very nearly doubled their traffic over the previous year, and at the same time B.O.A.C. increased by 6·3 per cent. and B.E.A. by 23·1 per cent. Therefore, it is hardly correct to say that our policy, whether in respect of trooping or charter work generally, has been hampering or detrimental to the corporations. On the contrary, the greater freedom has resulted in an overall increase in traffic, which has been to the benefit of British aviation generally.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that this is an industry in which the traffic would not increase anyway. It is a growing industry, as the motor industry was in the 1920's, and still is.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Had the right hon. Gentleman followed the argument, he would have appreciated that I was referring to an observation by one of his hon. Friends, who said that the corporations had been hampered by this policy.

Mr. Beswick: Hear, hear.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is not a bad bit of hampering, as far as B.E.A. is concerned, to increase its traffic by 23·1 per cent.

Mr. Beswick: And to increase the loss by £300,000?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We will come to that.
Let us consider the question of traffic. The only way that competition with independents can hamper the corporations is by taking their traffic away from them. It therefore is clear that if the traffic of all bodies concerned has increased, it is not right to say that they have been hampered. On the contrary, the greater freedom all round has been of benefit


all round. It has been of benefit particularly to British aviation generally, to the travelling public and to those who desire to send freight by air.

Mr. Pargiter: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with my question about the desirability of using better aircraft for trooping and the use of the Hermes rather than the continued use of the York?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have not overlooked that point, but let me finish this one first. Our view is that the balance that we have kept between the corporations and the independents has been of benefit to both; and the figures demonstrate that.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman not arguing that the corporations could have had a much larger share of the increasing traffic but were kept out of that larger share, which they could have had on their competitive capacity, and that the traffic has been given instead to people who would make a private profit out of public needs?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman refers to those who operate independent air services as making a profit out of public needs. That is a rhetorical phrase which he might find agreeable on the platform, but it is hardly worthy of him before the House of Commons.

Mr. Beswick: It is true.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We are at a point of fundamental disagreement between the two sides of the House. Whereas right hon. and hon. Members opposite sincerely believe in restriction and monopoly—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I and my hon. Friends believe in greater expansion. That is really the difference between us.
The hon. Member for Southall pressed me to answer his question about the type

of aircraft used for trooping. As he knows, the selection of operators for air trooping contracts is the responsibility of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air. It is, however, the fact that a good many trooping contracts are operated with the Hermes aircraft, whose suitability for the purpose the hon. Member himself announced. I agree that we should like to see as high a standard as possible in the aircraft used for trooping purposes.
It is, of course, fair to say that the York aircraft, to which the hon. Member referred, has a very good record for reliability and has carried a very large number of men in safety. I should not like anything that the hon. Member said—I am sure he did not intend it—in the debate this afternoon to cause any apprehension to those or their families who happen to travel in that type of very reliable aircraft. But it is, of course, the fact—perhaps here I stray a little from my own sphere—that from every point of view it is desirable that there should be a reserve of high grade aircraft for this purpose, which would be extremely useful in any emergency.
I have tried to answer a good many of the points which have been put in the debate. To sum up, the reports show that despite the difficulties which B.O.A.C. in particular encountered in the course of the year, both corporations have been operated and managed with resource and skill, and that looking back at the report for the last year, one need not be quite so gloomy as one or two hon. Members have been as to the future. I believe that under the vigorous management which they enjoy, these corporations will continue to give us good service.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Reports and Accounts of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways Corporation for the year ended 31st March, 1954.

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS)

8.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section eight of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, praying that the said Act, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-five.
It is customary on these occasions, I understand, to seek your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, for the House to have, on the first of the series of five Government Motions on the Order Paper tonight, a general debate on emergency legislation, and, thereafter, to take the other four Motions, the last two of which stand in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Supply, if not formally, at least somewhat more briefly.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Is that agreeable to the House?

Mr. Ede: It has proved very useful in the past and as far as we are concerned we should prefer that that should be the course tonight.

Major Lloyd-George: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
The procedure connected with this annual operation for the renewal of emergency legislation is, I confess, somewhat baffling to a newcomer. The chief proposition to which it is my duty to seek the assent of the House can, however, be put in very simple terms. It is that, on the basis of the Government's record in this matter since the powers were last renewed, the House should agree with our submission that the public interest requires that the limited powers proposed to be continued for a further 12 months should be continued.
To enable the House to reach a judgment on the merits of the case which I now commend to it, we have presented, in accordance with custom, a White Paper on Emergency Legislation. In the White Paper hon. Members will find, set out in detail, what has been achieved since last

December in the way of revocations, an itemised list of the powers which we propose should be continued and an indication of the method by which continuance is secured under the various enactments with which the five Motions before us are concerned.
At the outset, I invite hon. Members to be prepared to refer to the latest edition of the defence regulations, which includes all those in force at 27th December, 1953. The edition is the 21st—in the grey cover. Reference to it will be necessary for an understanding of the details set out in the White Paper.
The table in paragraph 5, on page 4 of the White Paper, tells its own story of the inroad made into the surviving regulations since the 21st edition was published. It is a story of 28 regulations disposed of this year, reducing to less than one-third the total of regulations now surviving, compared with the 215 regulations which this Government inherited on taking office in 1951. The House will see from paragraph 6 of the White Paper that the true picture is, in fact, rather better than appears from the purely statistical analysis of the table. Considered in terms of substantive regulations, which is the fairest measure of what remains to be done, the total of regulations to be continued is, in fact, no more than 25, of which only 16 are Defence (General) Regulations.
In giving these figures I confess to the House a sense of embarrassment, for, though I am not, I trust, a "hard" man like the lord in the parable, I am reaping where I have not sown and gathering where I have not strawed. The emergency legislation balance sheet, if I may so describe it, analyses results achieved under my predecessor in a field that he had made peculiarly his own. It is to his endeavours that we should give the largest measure of credit for the striking reduction in the number of regulations now to be continued.
I am sure it would be the general wish of the House tonight that I should take this opportunity to express to my noble and learned Friend our appreciation of the zeal with which he applied himself to this task, in addition to all the other burdens falling to him as the head of a major Department of State. His survey in the corresponding debate a year ago at the beginning of this Session was


masterly. We have always recognised that the clearing up of war-time legislation was as much a House of Commons matter as the Government's.
I do not propose to traverse the whole ground of the procedures by which defence regulations are continued. Nor shall I weary the House with an explanation in detail of why we have come to the conclusion that each of the regulations set out in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the White Paper, and each of the enactments mentioned in paragraphs 8, 10 and 11, should be continued.
I can, however, give this assurance. In respect of all the provisions to be continued, we are satisfied that the powers conferred are essential in the public interest. Each has been scrutinised and in regard to each a convincing justification for continuance can be offered. Moreover, I should make it plain that it does not do to assume that the regulations to be continued are in the main restrictive; on the contrary, they constitute, for the most part, provisions enabling things to be done for which, otherwise, no provision would exist. I need only mention the Welfare Food Scheme, for without D.R.'s 55 and 55AB it would have to cease overnight.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who will be speaking later in the debate, will be prepared to explain the position in respect of any regulation in which hon. Members may express an interest in the course of this debate. There will also be an opportunity on the emergency laws motions, which we shall take later, to raise points on the particular regulations and enactments mentioned in the Order Paper which the form of the parent Act requires to be set out in schedule form in the Motions themselves.
I propose to address myself to three main aspects of the problem; first, the progress achieved since 1951 in dispensing with controls and other powers deriving from emergency legislation; and, secondly, the results achieved by the application of the Government's policy in the last 12 months, with special reference to the Defence Regulations (No. 9) Order; and, thirdly, the outlook for the future.
Let me take the first point, progress since 1951. It is not without apprehension that I have assumed responsibility

for directing the general attack on disposing of emergency legislation and getting rid of the controls operated under it, for it is a very complicated subject. I am not, however, without some knowledge of what is involved, because I was the Minister of Food for three years. When I assumed office in the Ministry in 1951, there were no fewer than 106 main orders imposing controls over foodstuffs made under D.R. 55. This regulation has been the main instrument for the operation of economic controls of all kinds, and the Minister of Food is only one of the many competent authorities to operate under it.
In my first year of office, although we were clear as to our objective, progress towards it was slow; there were still 94 orders in force at the end of 1952. Last year, however, the number had shrunk by half to 51 and by the end of this year there are expected to be no more than 11, which, I think, is considerable progress when it is remembered that in 1951 the number was 106.
The House will see from these figures that, in dealing with the people's food, as in other fields of economic administration within the provinces of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Supply, the Government did not set off on any reckless and doctrinaire dash for freedom. Economic recovery was the first objective; thereafter, steady progress could be made towards our goal, but the rate of progress would need to be determined by sober consideration of the facts in each particular case.
In the Government's first year of office there actually had to be a tightening of import controls necessitated by the balance of payments situation. Extra restrictions were imposed under emergency legislation powers. In the Ministry of Food we could at that time do no more than relax controls on a few items such as cakes, biscuits, soap, and so forth. In the following year, as the country, under the wise direction of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, began to recover its economic health, it was possible for the tempo to be quickened.
We were able, in 1953, to secure relaxations in regard to meat products, sweets, sugar, cereals, animal feeding-stuffs, the price of eggs and flour and the


licensing of retailers; and now, in 1954, we have been able to dispense with the main structure of rationing, licensing of manufacturers, wholesalers and caterers, and the controls of meat, bacon, fats, cheese and the sale of livestock.
I think that all of us felt—wherever we sit in the House—a sense of relief and thanksgiving when we were able, on 3rd July, to discard our ration books. We had had them for so long that, after 14 years, people had almost grown to accept them as part of their daily life. The 3rd July was a milestone in the realisation of our policy. The disappearance of the ration book symbolised a great deal more than just the end of meat rationing.
While the Ministry of Food was pressing on with the decontrol of foodstuffs, and other Departments responsible for controls of one kind and another were similarly engaged, action in the wider field of emergency legislation itself has been going forward. In the past year Parliament itself has made a very notable contribution. No fewer than eight Bills have been, or shortly will be, enacted which, on coming into effect, either have replaced or will replace emergency powers. Meanwhile, Departments have been applying themselves to dispensing with such other provisions as could be dropped by administrative decision. Perhaps I could give one example.
My hon. Friend the Minister of Works informed the House earlier this month that building licensing can now be dispensed with, with considerable consequential savings in Government expenditure. Building licensing depended on D.R. 56A, an elaborate regulation covering 3½ pages of print, made even more elaborate by the equally lengthy Sixth Schedule which went with it, which was also about 3½ pages. That regulation, having served its purpose, is now dispensed with.
I do not propose to recite further details of the action taken in regard to emergency legislation during 1954, of which the White Paper provides a summary. Hon. Members cannot have failed to notice from their Order Papers with what frequency statutory instruments have been appearing revoking existing orders. There have been at least 30 of them this year, ranging from cold storage to hire purchase, and from ships' stores to knackers' yards. There have also been nine defence regulation orders revoking regulations themselves in whole or in

part, and I should like to dwell for a brief moment on the most important of these. This is the Defence Regulations (No. 9) Order, to which a reference is made in the Appendix to the White Paper on page 7.
As I have made plain to the House, our aim has been to reduce these emergency powers to the bare minimum. For reasons on which I do not now need to enlarge, there is no early prospect of getting rid of D.R. 55 itself. But D.R. 55 is expressed in very wide terms. It gives the Government power, for any of the wide-ranging purposes in the Supplies and Services Acts, to regulate or prohibit the
production, treatment, keeping, storage, movement, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of articles of any description.
These powers are in fact, now required only for very limited purposes and in relation to a handful of commodities.
We have, accordingly, thought it right that an Order in Council should be made pruning the number of Ministers who are competent authorities to those who now actually need, or may need, to exercise the powers, and as regards those who remain in possession of the powers, defining in precise terms the purposes for which they may continue to exercise them. I might put it this way: the No. 9 Order applies to the purposes for which the economic control regulations may in future be exercised the same slimming process as we have hitherto used in respect of regulations. I feel confident that the House will agree with me that this is in itself a healthy refinement, and one which is a logical development of our declared object of retaining no more than the minimum of powers demonstrably required in the public interest.
As to the future, I want to turn to consider the outlook as regards emergency legislation. It would be natural enough to feel that, having come so far in a comparatively short space of time, it should be practicable for us, with one final effort, as it were, to dispose of the remaining handful of regulations very quickly. But that would be taking altogether too superficial a view of what is involved. A statistical measure based on the number of regulations to be dealt with is misleading for such a purpose, and the House must not expect that the


rate of progress over the last three years can be sustained in the future.
We are now at grips with the hard core of emergency legislation. All the remaining regulations and enactments serve an important, and most of them a continuing, purpose. Very few will wither on the branch and be disposed of by administrative action. It is broadly true to say the powers now proposed to be continued cannot be given up until they are replaced in due time by permanent peace-time legislation. We are beyond the stage where an Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, such as was passed in 1953 to deal with valuable minor provisions, will meet the case. Each provision has to be dealt with more or less on its own, and in some cases several Bills will be necessary before a particular regulation can be given up.
Perhaps the House will understand what is involved if I give a couple of illustrations. Defence Regulation 59 confers a general power on the Minister of Labour and National Service to grant exemptions from the provisions of the Factories Act, 1937. In the course of the year we have narrowed this discretion of the Minister to those purposes for which the power to grant exemptions is, in fact, used—primarily as regards the hours of work of women and young persons. For example, during and since the war there has been a considerable increase in the number of women employed in what are known as "continuous process" industries, notably glass production. Compliance with the provision of the pre-war Factories Act as regards women's hours of work in this and other essential industries would be quite impracticable.
In due course it is evident that Parliament must legislate to deal with the matter, but the form which legislation to amend the Act of 1937 should take equally evidently requires consultation with the affected industries and with representatives of both employers and workpeople. In the meantime, another part of the regulation concerned with mines and quarries has in fact been dealt with in the current Session in the Mines and Quarries Bill, and paragraph (2) of the regulation will disappear when the new Bill is brought into force, which will be probably early in 1956.
Perhaps even more striking in this context is paragraph 2 of Defence Regulation 55 itself, as supplemented by Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) Regulations. Under these regulations the pre-war legislation for the marketing of a number of the main agricultural commodities has been suspended. There is no escaping the fact that each of the commodities involved will require to be dealt with in the future in Bills drafted after consultation with the affected interests. The range is considerable—bacon, pigs, livestock, milk, sugar and wheat. In the meantime, it would be disastrous if the emergency legislation powers were to lapse.
The House will appreciate that, much as we dislike in principle continuing to rest on emergency legislation, a formidable programme of legislation lies ahead of it before we can see an end to these powers. The House will not expect me to forecast how long it will take to get this legislation through. Much of it is controversial and requires careful preparation and discussion with the interests concerned before it is introduced, and all this has to be related to a background of pressure on the available Parliamentary time.
As regards the immediate future, the House will understand that I cannot anticipate the contents of the Gracious Speech at the opening of the new Session, and must beg to be excused any statement tonight on this aspect. But I should be less than frank with the House if I were to let it be thought we were in sight of our goal. I can say that we do not in any way withdraw from our declared aim and purpose in this matter. We shall continue to seek every reasonable opportunity to carry out the task of clearing up the legacy of wartime powers. What we have achieved is on the record. It is a good record. On the basis of that record I confidently invite the House to say that the continuance of these powers for a further year is warranted.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Ede: We have had a clear and, in many ways, encouraging report from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I join with him in paying a compliment to the last Minister of Food, which he did with grace and emphasis. I can only regret that the last Minister of Food cannot get up and


make a suitable acknowledgment and reply, for I am quite certain that when he reads in HANSARD tomorrow what the present Home Secretary has said about him, he will feel that he is not such a bad fellow after all.
I welcome the decrease in the number of regulations, but more particularly I welcome the number for former regulations which have been embodied in permanent Acts of Parliament. I hope that the latter process will continue. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman can rest assured that, while we shall of course have to examine any proposals that may be brought before us, on the whole we welcome that method of dealing with these things which the use of the regulations has shown to be useful, for there are some things now included in the law of the land which, but for their experimental use under the defence regulations, might never have become the law of the land. I mention, for instance, the special arrangements made for seamans' canteens, which were in regulation form last year but have been brought during the present year into general legislation. Speaking as the Member for one of the great seaport towns of the country, I know what a benefit the regulation was and the assurance of continued opportunities for usefulness which the enactment of them as part of the law of the country has given.
I thought it was a bit unkind of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, surveying some of his colleagues, to say that they had shown no reckless nor doctrinnaire dash for freedom in their actions. That was the last thing I would have expected of them in view of the Prime Minister's pre-Election pledge that it was his job to set the people free. He could be no more expected to live up to that pledge than any others given during the Election.
I am bound to say that we view with some apprehension what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said about cold storage. There is, I think, a statutory instrument now lying on the Table of the House which we shall have to ask the House to consider before the period for its annulment expires. I understand that some of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies where this presents a serious problem are very concerned about

the proposals that have been brought forward.
Similarly, I have my personal misgivings about the net effect of the with drawal of building licences I am not at all sure that is not going to mean that private enterprise building, whether of a desirable or an undesirable kind, having regard to our general economic situation, will not be carried on to an extent that may be sometimes harmful, whereas public building—say of schools, hospitals and other buildings required for the public services—will continue to be restricted by the non-granting of loans to local authorities for the carrying on of such building. It would now appear that private building can proceed as fast as it can get materials and labour——

Mr. Ralph Assheton: And money.

Mr. Ede: —and money—but the public building programme will still be subject to Government restriction in all three. In view of the drastic economies made during the past few years in this form of public service, it does not seem that fair treatment is likely as between the two kinds of enterprise.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman intimated that some of these regulations, essential to the economic well-being of the country, are likely to remain with us for some time; although he indicated that, as Parliamentary time permitted, efforts would be made to bring some of them into the general legislation of the country. I agree about some. I think that the two examples which he chose are subjects requiring a good deal of consideration, and it would be quite futile to suggest that either of them is likely to come before the House in the form of agreed legislation.
Quite obviously, such a subject as the employment of women in particular industries is always likely to be a matter about which there will be very strong feeling; not necessarily between the two sides of this House, but between people who hold very different views on that social problem. We can only express the hope that the Government will continue their efforts, and that the sooner conversations take place between the various interests concerned and the Government, the better it will be for us all.
I do not think that anyone delights in regulations for the sake of regulations, or in emergency laws for the sake of having them. They give a flexibility to administration which in time of emergency is very useful; in fact, is essential for the proper conduct of public business. I am not sure that we need think that the possibility of an emergency has passed. During the past two or three years we, as a country, have been very lucky in the terms of trade which, in some aspects not under the control of any Government, have been very favourable to us. In the event of their taking a turn against us, through no fault of any Government, we might still need some of the powers dispensed with during the last two years, and some of the powers being dispensed with today.
On that the Government are gambling that things will fall out all right. May I say, in the interests of the nation, and as one who does not mind having a flutter himself—particularly when he can get good information from the stable—that I do not object to the Government taking an optimistic view. But sometimes even the best stable information turns out to be very defective, and in undertaking this gamble the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his colleagues in the Government have so far had luck that cannot always be guaranteed.
We do not propose to move any Amendments tonight to any of these Motions which are capable of amendment. But there are one or two things which still give some cause for misgiving. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) will be raising some questions with regard to the use made by the Service Departments of their powers to take land and to apply that land to military purposes. I do not intend to deal with the detailed examples which my hon. Friend may bring before the House as examples of the misuse of powers given by the House, but I must say that this is one of the things that has, throughout the existence of these regulations, given me cause for considerable concern. I sincerely hope that we shall receive from the right hon. and learned Attorney-General an assurance that the powers which continue to be

vested in the various Government Departments will be used with discretion and with some realisation of the position of those people who find life irksome under these regulations.
People who desire to use some of the great open spaces in the neighbourhood of the large industrial areas of this country can be very seriously inconvenienced by the misuse of powers given to the Service Departments when those Departments unnecessarily or needlessly impose restrictions on the use of the land taken by them. I very sincerely hope that the Service Departments will realise that, where such misuse takes place, it brings the various Armed Services of the country into some disrepute with their fellow-citizens.
I have every desire to see the best relationships existing between the ordinary civilian population and the three Armed Services of the Crown. It is always regrettable when there is any cause for friction between them, but when the cause is unnecessary and when the difficulty may have been created by the abuse of powers granted annually by this House, it is very greatly to be deplored.
My hon. Friend will develop this case at greater length than I have done, and will give some specific instances. I want to make it quite clear that, generally, we on this side of the House support him in what he has to say. Apart from that, I only want to thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for what he has said to us this evening and for the way in which he said it. I conclude, as I began, by joining in the testimony which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman paid to himself in a former dispensation.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: I wish, first of all, to congratulate my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary on his appointment to that high office and, secondly, on the very excellent way in which he introduced this Motion. He paid a tribute, as I am sure we all do, to the Lord Chancellor who so recently occupied the position of Home Secretary. We all know what a great interest he took in this matter. Indeed, the fruits of a great deal of his work are to be seen in the White Paper which is before us today.
Naturally, those of us who are keen defenders of Parliamentary Government do not like the power of law-making to be in the hands of the Executive. We all recognise that in some minor matters this is necessary and may, indeed, be desirable. But in major and important matters, such as many of these regulations cover, surely we all recognise that this is undesirable and can be defended only in the cases of emergency and war.
The Home Secretary has briefly described to us which regulations the Government are dispensing with and which are still to be left with us. Of course, we must all feel that the powers in their remaining regulations—particularly in Regulations 51 and 55—are still very great. I for one was glad to hear what the Home Secretary had to say about Regulation 55. I want to say a word about building licensing. I hope the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will not prove to be right in his fears with regard to the effect of the removal of building licensing. I do not think he will be. The greatest limitation of all on building is finding the money to build, whether the money comes out of public funds, Government funds, or local authority funds, or whether it comes from private persons and companies who find money to erect buildings.
I should have thought that the time had come when we could dispense with these building restrictions and licensing, and I am very glad indeed that the Government has been able to do so. I have a peculiar interest in this, because I had the fortune, or misfortune, to present to the House in 1940 the original regulation for building licensing, and I am very glad to be able to say goodbye to it today. I want to ask two questions. Am I right in thinking that this regulation now being removed cannot be reimposed by the Government? I should like to have a definite answer to that question and the definite assurance that building licensing cannot be reintroduced except by Act of Parliament. The second question is about food rationing. Can the right hon. and learned Gentle man the Attorney-General give an assurance that food rationing cannot be introduced again except by Act of Parliament? Those two matters are extremely important, because there may be Governments in the course of the next 25 or 30 years——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): As I understand it, it is not proposed to continue these regulations. If it is not proposed to continue them, it cannot be in order to discuss them. It can only be in order to discuss those it is proposed to continue.

Mr. Assheton: I am much obliged to you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. On the assumption that these regulations cannot be continued, or re-introduced by the Government, I will not pursue the matter further. But can it be made clear what the exact position with regard to this matter is?

8.54 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I should like to begin by reinforcing what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said about the dangers that may be consequential upon the proposal for the withdrawal of building licensing. I do not want to develop that now, because I hope there will be some other opportunity of debating this, but it is clear that hon. Members on the other side of the House seem to be encouraging in every way they can—so far as one can judge by the sight of one's own eyes—showy, pretentious and tasteless private building, apparently on the grounds that it is paid for out of private pockets and ought not to worry us.
Apparently, all this is to be encouraged still further, while the really vital construction work which is needed for the sake of the country as a whole, both for educational and for health purposes, is being restrained as strictly as ever, if not more strictly, on the grounds that the expenditure is coming out of public and not private funds. I see that it will be unwise to follow this general argument much further now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I only hope that there will be some other opportunity when I may do so.

Mr. Ede: On a point of order. Previously, when we have had this general debate as a preliminary to the more detailed debate on the resolutions, it has been the custom for mention to be made of those things which the Government were not proposing to continue. The only alternative to that would be to put down Amendments to reinsert some of these orders. In previous years that has been done, and at a later stage, when notice has been given of the Amendments, we have proceeded to a Division. I


would hope that what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton., and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) have said will not be regarded as going beyond what has been allowed on previous occasions.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman himself very delicately skirted around it and kept in order, but I do not think that that can be argued in detail from this Motion. Reference might be made to it but, since the order is not included, I do not think that it can be discussed if there is no Amendment on it.

Mr. Frederick Lee: On a point of order. Where an Act of Parliament which has been worked by previous Governments will now be changed because a regulation is not to be continued, may we not discuss it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not in order for it to be discussed here at all. We can only discuss the orders which it is proposed should be continued, and any reason for not continuing them.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I hope that you will not bring any charge of indelicacy against me in this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I hoped that I had skirted round this sufficiently satisfactorily to meet the wishes of the House. I would emphasise again the hope that it may be possible to have more detailed discussion of this very important and serious matter.
I want now to turn to Regulation 51, which is being continued and which is certainly within the terms of the order—and some reference is made in Regulation No. 52 in the next set of resolutions—with particular reference to the use, by the Service Departments, both the Air Ministry and the War Office, of the powers granted by it in respect of their main training grounds.
Before I come to the War Office case, I should like, in passing, to refer to the particular instance that is being discussed at present in the columns of "The Times." It concerns the use by the Air Ministry of these powers in relation to its proposal to build, I understand, a new Air Force radio station on Kingston Hill, in Oxfordshire, which is a very famous

beauty spot in the Chilterns. That has aroused a great deal of controversy locally where, so far as one can tell, action has been taken in complete secrecy and without any proper information being provided to the local public. Only when the decision has actually been taken has it been possible for objection to be raised.
It is that high-handed kind of action that impairs the sort of relationships to which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields referred. I hope either that someone from the Air Ministry will say something about this at a later stage, or that the Attorney-General, as was suggested by his right hon. and gallant Friend would be the case, will take on his broad shoulders the responsibility for answering all the questions, and that he will be able to reply on this specific point.
Some of these individual instances may seem relatively small in themselves; their importance lies in the effect they have upon public relations. Indeed, it concerns all of us who have some regard for the preservation of the beauty of some of these areas. All of us are anxious that, while proper facilities should be given to the Services, as far as possible we should not destroy the great amenities and other possible interests which should be preserved.
I want particularly to refer to problems that some of us are confronting in the North of England, in relation to the large training-ground area covering a very large part of the Border country—the Redesdale Range. I referred to this in Questions to the War Office, and the Secretary of State himself replied on 9th November. I then asked him about the areas of land which were being held by the War Office under these regulations in addition to the area which had been the subject of public inquiry in recent years. In reply, the Secretary of State for War referred to three specific minor areas actually held under Defence Regulations 51 and 52 and occupied by the War Office at present, in respect of which it was seeking an extended right to use them.
The point I want to emphasise is that the War Office already occupy in this wild stretch of moorland a very large and extensive area—in fact, one of the largest in the country. There was very considerable public feeling some years ago which primarily led to a public inquiry being held to determine what the boundaries


of this very large area should be. There was very little criticism of the desire of the War Office to use very large sections of the area, but there was very great anxiety about the way in which this range might in future expand. After considerable public agitation, this inquiry was held, and after a long time a decision was reached as to what the boundaries should be.
Most of us, in our naïve way, thought that that was the end of the matter, but now it seems that it was very far from being the end of the matter, because the War Office have gone on, both by purchase and by the use of Defence Regulation 51, to take over for further use other areas adjacent to, or in some cases some little way outside, the actual range area. If the War Office is to act in this way, many of the public are asking what is the use of having these public inquiries if at the end of the day the War Office merely adds to the boundaries which have been settled after careful hearing and long negotiation, and in which concessions have been made by both sides—by the amenity interests, by those interested in the agricultural interest, as well as by the War Office itself.
Some people are very concerned, because some of the added small areas now bring the range right up to some of the famous historic and religious relics in that part of Northumberland, and, in particular, bring it right up to, if not including, the small village of Holystone, which includes very famous old religious relics of very great significance and interest to the whole area.
I felt that the Secretary of State, when answering my Question, was rather casual about it. The right hon. Gentleman may not have known the area, and I do not necessarily blame him for that, although I would encourage him to go to see it. He referred to it as being sparsely populated moorland in Northumberland, but that description should not be used as a term of denigration, but rather as something for which to be grateful if we do still possess areas of sparse population on which we can walk at times.
Apart from that, this is an area which, from the agricultural point of view, has always been famous for the sheep which it has reared, and it was not purely a question of maintaining an

empty, barren waste. Maybe some of the sheep farmers would be glad to get compensation from the War Office, but the real point about which we are concerned is that steadily, year after year, the War Office is increasing its hold, not only upon the original area that was accepted at the public inquiry, but, by carrying out mopping-up operations, on areas outside the original area, including districts of great beauty and very special interest.
It was understood at the time of the public inquiry into the use of this land that if the War Office were to find it necessary in future years, because of the greater range of guns to be used, to have a wider firing range, instead of demanding an increased area of land it would use firing points well outside the range, and even in some cases would fire over public roads, and so on, in certain desirable places. It looks to us as if that policy has been discarded to try to bring the outer firing points within the range itself, within the training area as a whole. If that were to be done, the general public would be denied access to an enormously increased area of land.
This is a matter which concerns us all the more because at this very time the National Parks Commission is discussing with the Northumberland County Council a very big project for the development of a National Park covering a good part of this very area. Therefore, there axe many reasons why the War Office should not go to work in this hole-and-corner way, and should not make use of these special powers without giving a full opportunity of public protest and public criticism.
If it feels that it is necessary to increase the areas it requires, the same procedure should be gone through as was gone through before, and a full opportunity given, by means of a public inquiry, for criticism to be made, so that at least the people may feel that their voices have been heard, and that a reasonable opportunity has been given to come to a satisfactory compromise.
I hope it will be possible, before the debate ends, for us to have an answer from the Secretary of State for War and the Under-Secretary of State for Air, or from the Attorney-General, which will allay our specific anxieties.

9.7 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), from experience during the war, said that flexibility was necessary in legislating during a period of emergency, and I agree with him—flexibility whereby all one has to do is to write out an order, which some civil servant signs, and which immediately has the force of law. That is easy, and I agree that it is necessary during an emergency. It is all the more important, therefore, that when the emergency is over the House of Commons, as representing the people, should recover from the Executive their freedom, because this flexibility to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is in reality dictatorship, given freely by the House of Commons and by the people to the Government to win a war or to overcome an emergency, but to be taken away, I submit, at the earliest possible opportunity afterwards.
It is as a House of Commons man that I intervene in this debate. Anybody who has read history knows the struggle for power against tyrants in the past. The latest tyrant is the Government. I am not referring only to the present Government composed of my right hon. Friends, but to the Government who took to themselves, but were also given freely, all the powers to win the war. The time has come, 10 years after the war, to restore these powers to the people and to take away from the Government the excessive powers which they possess. I therefore congratulate my right hon. and gallant Friend, and in particular his predecessor Lord Kilmuir, on reducing the number of regulations in force from 215 in October, 1951, to 69 today. That is a great record, and nobody is more glad of it than I am.
My right hon. and gallant Friend said that the time for the abolition of Ministerial powers by this method has come to an end and that any further powers must be abolished by legislation. In general, I do not disagree with that, but I urge him to continue the good work which has been done and, either by administrative action or by the introduction of Bills into Parliament, to take steps to get rid of the remainder of this emergency legislation.
One piece of this legislation I intensely dislike, and it is subsection (1, c) of the

Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act, 1947, which reproduces page 71 of the 1953 issue of the Defence Regulations and which gives the Government power generally to ensure that the whole resources of the community are available and are used in a manner best calculated to serve the interests of the community. That is far too wide a power to be given to any Government in peace-time, and the sooner it is abolished the better.
We have only 69 regulations to abolish. Indeed, I think the position is slightly better than that, because some of these regulations are administrative, legal or technical and must remain until the last active regulation has been abolished. There are probably 20 of these, so that if we could get rid of 30 of the main regulations we might automatically get rid of another 30 of the administrative, technical or legal regulations. I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will not be weary in well-doing in pursuing the great work done by Lord Kilmuir.
I want to ask the Attorney-General to give some information about four of the defence general regulations, particularly as the House has been assured that he will answer all the questions about all the regulations. Personally, I thought that was a tall order. I have been studying these books for some years, and I have never been quite sure that I have found my way round them, but if my right hon. and learned Friend has done so, good luck to him.
The first one in the book is No. 46. Is it necessary to license every ship before it puts to sea? Is it necessary to continue Regulation No. 46? I do not know. There may be good reasons for it; it may be mixed up with the control of strategic materials being taken to Russia or China. It seems to me to be a tall order to license every ship by emergency regulation before it can put to sea.
Let us consider, next, Regulation 50A. Is it necessary to have these powers as to water? We have had the Water Acts in England and Wales and in Scotland since the war and we have a mass of water regulations under which local authorities administer water undertakings. Is it necessary for the Government to come in over the heads of all the statutory undertakers and order


water to be sent down a pipe when the local authority is quite prepared to send it down the pipe anyway? There may be good reasons—I do not know. I think that that particular regulation requires some explanation and justification.
The next one is 58A—control of employment. It has been very much reduced in scope, but employers of certain categories of workers are still unable to employ workers except through the employment exchanges. That is a nuisance to the employers and to the newspapers who advertise these vacancies, because the newspapers have to put in something to the effect that these vacancies are being advertised in accordance with this regulation. Is it really necessary to continue this regulation?
The fourth one I do not understand at all. It is Regulation 62—control of cultivation and termination of agricultural tenancies. This applies only to England and Wales. If we can get rid of it in Scotland, why is it necessary to keep it in England; why should England be behind Scotland in this matter?
I should like to say, in agreement with my right hon. Friend, that Lord Kilmuir's work has been answered with striking results, as shown in the White Paper, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be complacent and live in the sunshine of Lord Kilmuir's actions, and that he will be encouraged to get rid of the whole of this volume at the earliest possible moment.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I thought it rather significant that the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) should be accusing the wartime Government of all sorts of tyrannies, following so shortly upon the speech made by the noble Lord who spoke for the Government in another place. I hope that that will not spread on the benches opposite, because it may well give the impression that there is a split not only in the Commons itself but in another place.
I want to say a word about Regulation 58A—dealing with the control of employment—which empowers the Minister to regulate the engagement of workers by employers. I have never taken any particular exception to this, but it is one

of the regulations which is to be continued. I know that during my period at the Ministry of Labour one of the reasons we sought certain control of the engagement of workpeople was the maldistribution of employment in various parts of the country.
We saw the fantastic position, at one period, in which we had many thousands of vacancies which we could not fill because there were far more jobs available than there were people to fill them, while there was unemployment in other parts of the country. Therefore, I approved of this regulation when it was introduced. I should like to know how this regulation can function, once Regulation 56A has gone.
During my term of office at the Ministry of Labour we were very reluctant to permit any employer engaging workers for his factory if there was a large vacancy list—that is, a large number of jobs which we could not fill. We felt that it would merely aggravate the position if, in Coventry or Birmingham, for example, where there were 40,000 registered vacancies and the men could not be found to fill them, employers were to be permitted to enlarge their factories and thereby compete with other employers for the labour which was already in short supply.
We tried, through the Distribution of Industry Acts, to get those employers to erect new factories in parts of the country where there was unemployment. On the whole, we did it very successfully and new hope was brought to areas in which there was chronic unemployment. To do that successfully, it was important that where there was an acute labour shortage we should be able to prevent employers from building extensions to their factories. I suggest that Regulation 58A will not be effective in any way once an employer has power, irrespective of the position of the labour market, to enlarge his factory in an area where shortage of labour exists.
Already, I understand, in parts of South and West Wales there is great apprehension because some of the people who erected factories there as a result of our policy of getting employers to go to those areas are now tending to leave those areas and are concentrating their efforts in the very centres where there is still a great shortage of labour.
If that sort of thing is to continue, it is difficult to know what purpose Regulation 58A can serve. There will be demands by employers for non-existent labour, and there will be chaos. Under those conditions, what possible use can it be for employers to go to the employment exchanges under Regulation 58A to try to obtain the labour? The only thing that they will find is a huge list of jobs for which there are no people anyway. Therefore, it appears to me to be nonsensical to maintain Regulation 58A once building licensing disappears altogether.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is as anxious as I am to ensure the adequate distribution of work throughout the country, but I suggest that unless something can be done still to allow the Distribution of Industry Acts to function as they have done and to give incentives to employers to go into the areas where there is fear of unemployment, and where, indeed, unemployment already exists, Regulation 58A will not fulfil the functions which the hon. Gentleman's Department requires of it.
Similarly, we have the position that there are concentrations of industry. In Wales, for instance, the old steel mills are being closed down and the new mills—Margam and the rest—are now going into operation. That, of itself, presupposes a large degree of redundancy. I understand that the old steel industry had to employ at least 8,000 more people than will be needed when the new mills are in operation.
At a time when this sort of thing is happening it is important that the Government should be able to induce employers to go into those areas with new factories and businesses, so that full employment may be maintained. It would appear to me to be somewhat contradictory that while we are maintaining Regulation 58A we are emasculating it by taking away powers which were possessed under Regulation 56A about buildings, enforcing building in certain areas, and so on. We shall now find this great concentration of industrial building tending to be in areas where the parent factory actually is and, at the same time, there will be a diminution in armament orders.
When I was at the Ministry of Labour one of the things we tried to do was to

get employers who had armament orders to keep them at the parent factory rather than send them to the new factories in the development areas. We knew that once the armament orders dried up the factories in the new areas would not be used any more and the problem of unemployment there would again arise.
I hope the Attorney-General will be able to answer the long list of points put to him, and I hope that the Government realise that by eliminating controls on all building they are, in fact, tending to emasculate Regulation 58A and encourage the concentration of industry in areas where even existing employers cannot hope to get an adequate supply of labour. I should have thought that by so doing they are damaging the productive effort of the country and our export trade.
I am limited in what I can say on this Motion and I am trying to keep within the rules of order. I hope I have said sufficient to show that there is a problem here. I am not asking for regulations to be kept for the sake of keeping them. Indeed, if Regulation 58A becomes redundant let us get rid of that as well. I hope that from what I have been able to say the Government will see the necessity for keeping control over building labour so as not to recreate the conditions we knew in pre-war days when unemployment spread in certain areas where there was not a sufficient diversity of unemployment.

9.28 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) welcomed the reduction in the number of regulations. Indeed, I do not think anyone has criticised Her Majesty's Government for the progress they have been able to make in dispensing with the emergency regulations and the other regulations referred to in the White Paper.
But the right hon. Gentleman expressed the view that perhaps we were taking too much of a gamble and that a certain amount of luck had been with us. during the last three years. I do not think it would be accurate to put every thing down to luck, and I should like to deal with the point that we might have need of some of these powers, and there fore, in dispensing with them we were indulging in some slight form of gambling. I do not share that view.
In the past, this House has shown itself ready to pass emergency regulations when an emergency arises, and if an emergency should arise in the future, then it will be, of course, for the Government of the day to come to the House and ask for such specific powers as may be necessary. I am sure that that is the right course; much better than keeping locked away for possible use on some future date in an emergency wide and extensive powers like those granted in an emergency by this House.
In moving this Motion, my right hon. and gallant Friend said that I would explain the position in respect of any regulation. That rather alarmed me, because I thought it might involve me in making a long speech and dealing in detail with every regulation. However, the House has been kind to me because I have not been asked about many regulations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) asked whether it would be possible to make a fresh Regulation 56A. The answer is that it would require legislation because, once a defence regulation has gone, existing legislation does not permit of that being done. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) commented much on Defence Regulations 51 and 52, giving instances of the use which had been made of powers under those regulations. I am sure that what he said about the exercise of those powers on those occasions will be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.
Here, of course, one is seeking to justify the continuance of the regulations, and I can make this general observation: no regulation is continued in this list without a very strong case having been made out for its continuance. The questions in relation to each regulation have been carefully and closely considered. For instance, it is necessary to have Regulation 52 to enable the use of land for training and firing practice without requisitioning or purchasing it. If that regulation went, we would have to rely on the Military Manœuvres Acts of 1897 to 1911, which are unsuitable for modern training requirements. Therefore it is necessary that this power under Defence Regulation 52 should remain until replaced by permanent legislation.

Mr. Blenkinsop: On that point, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, wherever possible, it is desirable that a further public inquiry should be held if proposals are being put forward for further extensive use of these emergency powers, especially when boundaries have already been laid down by previous public inquiries?

The Attorney-General: I do not think I am in a position to answer that question this evening. It is one for my right hon. Friend to consider, and I will ask him to do so. It is obviously desirable, when any proposal of this kind is brought forward, that full regard should be had to public opinion in the locality. In some cases it may be desirable, in other cases I can conceive it might not be possible, to have a public inquiry into the need for using a specific piece of land for some service purpose. However, I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) sought to test the statement of my right hon. and gallant Friend that I would explain every regulation by giving the longest list that any hon. Member has given in this debate. He started with Regulation 46 and asked whether that was really necessary. The answer shortly is, "Yes." It is under that regulation that the Control of Trade by Sea (China and North Korea) Order was made in March, 1953. The possibility of bringing that control to an end depends on the international situation and on agreement amongst the powers concerned about the freeing of trade with China and North Korea from restrictions.
Then we turn to Regulation 58A. I should like to make it quite clear that I do not resent it if I am asked questions about these regulations, because it is important that people should realise, first of all, that the matter has been most carefully considered, and, secondly, that a strong case exists for the continuance of such one of them. During the war we were not able to make the usual provision for new water supplies which are normally made in peacetime years, and of course there has been a greatly increased demand from industry for water. It is essential in time of drought that there should be a quick method of authorising


the taking of water for essential purposes. If we get rid of this Regulation, we shall not have such power available.

Mr. Lee: Does the Attorney-General mean Regulation 50?

The Attorney-General: Yes.

Mr. Lee: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said "Regulation 58."

The Attorney-General: I am sorry. I meant Regulation 50A. This regulation has been used 171 times since the end of the war, in circumstances where there was not time to follow the procedure described in the Water Act, 1945. There is no need to rely on this regulation in Scotland, because there reliance is placed on Orders under Defence Regulation 56 suspending obligation in respect of compensation water.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus and the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) referred to Regulation 58A, which is called "Control of Employment." It deals now only with the Notification of Vacancies Order which was made under it. The question of the continuance of that Regulation has been carefully considered by the Minister of Labour, his Parliamentary Secretary and many others. It is considered that that Order on its own serves at the present time a very useful purpose in enabling the Minister, through the various employment exchanges, to give advice and to exercise perhaps some degree of persuasive influence in trying to fill important posts in the defence programme.
The hon. Member for Newton suggested that this order would really be of no value now that building licensing has disappeared. I do not think that that point is valid, for the reason that although building licensing has disappeared there are still the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act to be taken into account. I will not go into them tonight, because the House would be very weary if I did—even if I got them right.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus referred to Regulation 62. Only two paragraphs of that regulation remain. The regulation has to remain for a time because some 20,000 acres of land are held under requisition for farming purposes, of which 5,000 acres are in course of purchase. There

is also a residue of common and other land, 4,000 acres of which are held for temporary allotments. Power to make arrangements for cultivation is ancillary to power to hold the land. Paragraph 3 (A) of this regulation is to be retained until land can be purchased or released from requisition.

Captain Duncan: Are the Government getting on with that?

The Attorney-General: The whole process in relation to that is being actively, carefully and fully considered. I hope that I have now dealt with all the points that have been raised in the debate. I should like to join in the tribute extended by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary to the part which the Minister of Food played in this matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section eight of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, praying that the said Act, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-five.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that the Defence Regulations specified in the Schedule hereto, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-five.

SCHEDULE

The following Regulations of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, namely—
Regulation fifty-two (Use of land for purposes of Her Majesty's forces);
Regulations eighty-two, eighty-three, eighty-four, and eighty-five, (False documents and false statements, obstruction, restrictions on disclosing information and entry upon, and inspection of, land);
Regulations ninety-one to ninety-three, ninety-seven to one hundred and two, and one hundred and five (General, administrative, legal and supplementary provisions).


Parts I, II, III and IX and Schedules I and II of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) Regulations, 1939.
Regulations one and six of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939.
Regulation one and paragraph (5) of Regulation three of the Defence (Patents, Trade Marks, etc.) Regulations, 1941.
The whole of the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that the enactments specified in the Schedule hereto, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-five.

SCHEDULE

Subsection (1) of section three of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946 (which, as amended by section four of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, extends certain provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, relating to wheat and land drainage).

Section six of the said Act of 1946 (which extends the Sugar Industry Act, 1942).—[Major Lloyd-George.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

PATENTS

9.41 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Sir Edward Boyle): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under subsection (3) of section forty-nine of the Patents Act, 1949, praying that the Patents (Extension of Period of

Emergency) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the draft laid before 4his House on 3rd November.
I think the House would like a short explanation of this Motion. The order referred to extends for a further year the "period of emergency" for the purpose of Section 49 of the Patents Act, 1949. As a result of this order, Government Departments will still remain in possession of the additional powers relating to patented inventions which were granted to them under that Section of the Act. These additional powers are still needed in connection with the export of defence equipment. I am informed that Section 46 of the 1949 Act is not worded widely enough to cater for off-shore purchases by the United States Government. We are still in need of the powers granted under Section 49.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: The Parliamentary Secretary has been commendably brief and has given the essential reasons why the powers should be extended. I find his reasons quite convincing and agree with them.

Question put, and agreed to.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

DESIGNS

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 4 of the First Schedule to the Registered Designs Act, 1949, praying that the Registered Designs (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order 1954 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 3rd November.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — PESTS BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

New Clause.—(RESTRICTION ON GIN TRAPS.)

The Minister may declare any area to be a special area and it shall be an offence to use a gin trap in any area so declared.—[Mr. Dugdale.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I would be right in saying that this Clause has two merits to commend it to the Government. One is that it is a very simple new Clause, and the other merit is that it does not compel them to do anything at all—it simply gives them power to act under certain circumstances.
As we all know, the date on which the gin trap is to be abolished is four years from now. There is, therefore, an interval of four years and, during that interval, it will be possible for anyone still to use that trap. The purposes of this new Clause are to enable the Minister to schedule certain areas, if he so wishes, in which it would be illegal to use the gin trap. It does not compel him to schedule those areas. He may say that it is very difficult to find such areas. It may be said that to pick out an area and say that it is a suitable area is something which may be beyond the capabilities of anyone in the Ministry of Agriculture or anyone in the country. On the other hand, it may be possible.
If it is impossible, this Clause will do no harm at all, because the Minister will not have to schedule such an area. Should it be found possible at any time to pick out an area suitable for scheduling and to schedule it, If the Minister has not got these powers he would be in difficulty. During all those four years while the possibility of scheduling an area existed, he would not be able to do so simply because the powers had not been given. For that reason, I have introduced this Clause.
It may be said that the wording of the Clause is wrong. I suppose that no Clause introduced by a private Member is satisfactory to the Parliamentary draftsmen. If the Minister would agree

that, at any rate, there is no harm in the Clause and that it can do some good, and if he does not like the wording, I should be only too ready to withdraw the Clause and hope that he might be able to substitute a manuscript Amendment in more suitable terms.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): Despite the accommodating manner in which the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) moved his new Clause and his willingness to accept any verbal amendment we might think necessary, I must advise the House that it would add nothing useful to this Bill.
My right hon. Friend would be willing to accept such an Amendment could we reasonably anticipate such a possibility arising, but the fact is that my right hon. Friend cannot expect to ban the use of the gin trap in any area unless there is developed a reasonably practicable humane alternative. We have debated the possibility of that at length and, following our discussions in Committee last week, I hope the House is persuaded that the likelihood of it occurring before 1958 is small; although there is some likelihood that it may occur by 1957. To accept this new Clause would imply the expectation that such a development might take place before then. As that is not within the bounds of possibility, we have no alternative but to advise the House to reject the Clause.
There is no substantial difference between one area and another. The purpose of the first part of the Bill is to enable us to proceed more vigorously with the extermination of rabbits. Whatever progress we may make with other means—whatever may be done by myxomatosis and so on—we take the view that there will always be a need for trapping in some places. Until such time as we have developed a humane alternative, farmers in some places will need the gin trap.
It may be some consolation to the right hon. Gentleman to know that the present demand for the gin trap is small. For one reason or another it has fallen off. The probability is that over the next three-and-a-half years there will be a gradual decrease in the use of this trap, as farmers prepare themselves to use the humane alternative which we hope will be developed by then.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: The argument of the Parliamentary Secretary seems to revolve on the fact that nothing can be done until the discovery of some workable alternative to the gin trap. I hope that I have not misunderstood him. But supposing no workable alternative is found. We have been trying to find one for 50 years. As I have explained more than once to the House, I have tried all the available alternatives brought to my notice and have failed to discover a suitable one. Does this mean that it is quite impossible to do anything until such an alternative is found?
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that there are methods of destroying rabbits, and of keeping them destroyed, quite apart from this gin trap. I maintain that an area in which such methods and their success can be demonstrated and the result on the crops can be demonstrated to the farmer will carry very great weight and will be of very great advantage not only as regards this Clause, but in assisting the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary in getting rid of rabbits in this country and so increasing our food production which, I know, is a task that they have very much at heart.
I suggest that even without the gin trap, or any similar spring trap alternative, there still exist methods of completely ridding an area of rabbits. Those methods are, as is well known, netting, gassing, ferreting, shooting, coursing with dogs, and so on. It is utterly absurd to suggest that nothing can be done until we have found an alternative to the gin trap. I consider that this new Clause would be very helpful to the Minister in what I know he has very much at heart, the creation of rabbit-free areas in this country, by allowing him to demonstrate to farmers that it is possible to do that without this abomination, the gin trap, and that there are other quite equally efficient methods.

Dr. Horace King: I had intended to second my right hon. Friend's proposed new Clause until I learned that, because he is a Privy Councillor, it did not require seconding. However, I want to ask the Minister to take a little further note of what was said by my right hon. Friend. He is not seeking by this Clause to compel

the Minister between now and July, 1958, to ban the gin trap from any area. He is not even asking the Minister to accept his view that we may discover a substitute for it before July, 1958, but only that, if that should happen, there should be something in the Bill which would enable the Minister to make the experiment which he believes will not at present take place.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 12.—(SPREADING OF MYXOMATOSIS.)

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 12, line 13, to leave out from "to," to the end of line 14, and to insert:
a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or, if he has been previously convicted of such an offence, a fine not exceeding fifty pounds:
Provided that this section shall not render unlawful any experiment duly authorised under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.
This is an Amendment to the new Clause 12 which was successfully moved during the Committee stage, and which made the deliberate spreading of myxomatosis an offence. The effect of this Amendment would not substantially modify the intention of the new Clause. It simply proposes to do two things. The first is to remedy some small ambiguity with regard to the penalties which might occur on a first or second offence. As the Clause was originally drafted, it might not have been entirely clear what was a second offence in regard to either the gin trap or myxomatosis. By the new wording we make it perfectly plain what is a first offence and what is a second offence in each case.
The more substantial part of the Amendment is the second part which we have inserted to safeguard the position of research work. As originally drafted, the new Clause might have made illegal the research and experimental work which is now going on with regard to myxomatosis. As the House will know, we have been doing a certain amount of work in order to learn more about the behaviour of the virus. Despite its existence in our country, we still know very little about it and, therefore, a certain amount of work is going on in regard to that and for the development of an effective vaccine to give full protection to domestic rabbits.
The Amendment would allow that research and experimental work to con-


tinue, but under the full safeguards accorded by Home Office licensing regulations; and I think the House will be fully assured that that will prevent any possible abuse. I trust that with that explanation the House will agree to accept the Amendment.

Dr. King: It would be ungracious to object to an alteration in the drafting of the Clause which I had the honour to move in Committee. I doubt whether any Member of Parliament has objected to Parliamentary draftsmen and has survived. I accept the arguments the Minister has given that this makes a better form of words, but I want to raise a query about the second half of the Amendment.
I read in the "Daily Telegraph" today that the Australians have found that myxomatosis in Australia is less devastating now than it was some time ago and that the death rate among rabbits has dropped from 99 per cent. to 90 per cent. For this reason, Australian scientists are said to be experimenting with the French virus in the hope that it may prove more effective than the South American virus which they have used up to now.
The French virus is the one which was introduced into Kent and which has done all the damage in this country and against whose deliberate use the whole of this Bill is legislating. The "Daily Telegraph" states this morning that, but for this Bill, or for the Clause which we added in Committee, research and experiments to help the Australians to find a more potent form of myxomatosis than the one they are using at present could have been done under British auspices. It says:
… last week's decision by the House of Commons to make the deliberate spreading of myxomatosis illegal complicated the situation.
If this Amendment were devised to uncomplicate the situation for the benefit of Australian scientists, I would certainly object to it. Nobody except the anti-vivisectionists objects to experimentation with disease, if the aim is to save life and so do good to mankind. I would ask for an assurance from the Minister that the kind of experimental work that he has in mind is the kind that he himself mentioned just now and not the kind the Australians would wish us to indulge in.
I am all for good Commonwealth relations and for the internationalisation of science but we are making a law whose aim, among other things, is to make the deliberate spreading of myxomatosis in this country a crime. We should be illogical if, by this Amendment, we allowed our own research scientists to make it easier for Australian scientists to find a more potent virus than that which they have at the moment. My fears may be entirely unfounded. Indeed, the Act to which the Amendment refers (Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876) places restrictions on scientific experiments on animals. It says that they must be
… performed … with a view to the advancement by new discovery, of physiological knowledge, or of knowledge which will be useful for saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering …
It then provides a whole pattern of precautions which must be observed, and of licences which must be obtained. It may be that the Minister can assure us that the parent Act itself gives us all the safety which we want.

10.0 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): It is, of course, impossible to say what research will uncover, or what results will be obtained. I assure the hon. Member that the intention is that the results should be used in accordance with the spirit of the Bill, and not in the opposite direction. That, I think, will give him the comfort which he seeks.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Might I ask the Minister whether, in Australia, scientists have not already developed more potent types and variations of the original myxomatosis virus, the previous strains having become ineffective? There was a report in "The Times," I think some time in September, to that effect.

Mr. Nugent: If I may be permitted to reply to the hon. Member for Camborne and Falmouth (Mr. Hayman), the Australian experience is that, over the course of two or three years, the virus has become attenuated and its strength is now a good deal less than it was originally. The strength of the virus in the British Isles, however, is as strong as, if not stronger than, the Australian virus ever was. As far as we know this is the


strongest there has been. The Australians are concerned at this weakening, and for that reason they are proceeding with their present work.

Amendment agreed to.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
The Bill, to which I hope we shall give our blessing, came to us from another place last spring. It deals almost entirely with rabbits. For some time after it came to us the Government, like Brer Rabbit, "lay low and said nothing," wondering whether, in the light of current events in the rabbit world, the Bill would require substantial amendment. However, in the six or seven months that have elapsed, more has happened in relation to rabbits than in any previous time.
When the Bill was drafted this country was still free from myxomatosis. When it came to this House there were, I think, about 12 outbreaks in the south-east of England, and by that time it was clear that the disease had taken a firm hold and had become established. It is now present, to a greater or less extent, in almost every part of the United Kingdom. During these months our minds have been very much exercised with this problem. I think that it was worth allowing a little time to elapse, that events have shown that this Bill, as drafted, is sound, and that developments since then have shown that because of myxomatosis there is a greater need than before for the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have been very much encouraged by the recognition coming from all parts of the House to the need for the powers provided in Part I. The basis of Part I is that those who are concerned in this matter, the occupiers of farmland, should plan together and work together to put an end to the rabbit pest, which is the cause of enormous damage to our food production.
Part II of the Bill raises rather more controversial issues, but, though the Committee divided on Clause 8, I think we are united in our determination to get rid of the gin trap at the soonest practicable moment. The difference between us has really been as to how soon it is practicable to do so. I say again that I myself would like to get rid of it tomorrow, if that were possible. My difficulty is that with my responsibility for food produc-

tion, while there is no sound prospect of some alternative trap in sight, I feel I simply cannot deny the farmers at this moment any single weapon in their campaign to eliminate rabbits.
A date has now been fixed for the abolition of the gin trap, and farmers have the assurance that, in the time that is left to us, the Government, through the Humane Traps Advisory Committee, will press forward with energy to secure the development of effective humane traps. Potential inventors will be encouraged, and I would once again assure the House that development will not be handicapped for financial reasons.
As regards the deliberate spreading of myxomatosis, I hope and believe that the wishes of the House, which I believe reflect the wishes of the country at large, will bring this practice to an end. I should like to say that I believe that farmers are no less humane than their fellow citizens in the towns. I do not believe that during the past 12 months farmers have indulged in this practice at all generally, in spite of the temptation to do so arising from the appalling damage that these pests do.
Finally, I would say that I believe that there is an unprecedented opportunity at present for us to grapple effectively with the rabbit problem. That opportunity must be seized and exploited with the utmost vigour, and I can assure the House that, as soon as this Bill becomes law, I intend to initiate proposals for clearance areas without any loss of time, and to urge our county committees to prosecute the matter with continuing energy. In commending the Bill to the House, I should also like to thank hon. Members in all parts of the House for the contributions they have made to our discussions in order to ensure that this Bill shall be a practical and effective Measure.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I wish to congratulate the Minister on having so easily got through the first Bill which he has introduced to this House as a new Minister. I, too, want to bless this Bill, although I must say that there have been times when I have blessed it in another sense of the term. Those occasions were when I sat here Friday after Friday and it seemed that this Bill would never come to us. However, it finally reached us and has had a useful passage through this House


and has been considerably improved by the Minister's Amendments. We were not able to secure the acceptance of all our Amendments, but those introduced by the Minister have made this a better Bill than it was when it reached us from another place.
I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to use the power which he will have very shortly to take early action on the rabbit clearance areas. Myxomatosis has provided us with a heaven-sent or hell-sent—it depends upon one's point of view—opportunity to clear Britain of the rabbit pest. However it has come to us, whether by fair or foul favour, we have now power to mop up the few rabbits that will remain from the ravages of myxomatosis.
It may seem inconsistent with what I have said, but I urge the Minister to get the earliest possible date for the prohibition of the use of the gin trap. He has powers to enable him to bring the date nearer. I hope he will use those powers, because although I want to see this country cleared of rabbits I do not want to see it cleared by the cruellest possible method, as I believe the gin trap to be. I ask the Minister to set the earliest possible date for the abolition of the gin trap, using the powers he himself has provided in the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary, when he was replying to a debate about the date, twitted me with the fact that the Labour Government did not abolish the gin trap. I can tell him that we did prepare the way to some extent by the appointment of the Scott Henderson Committee, whose report has had such effect in the country that I believe that public opinion is now ripe for the abolition of the gin trap. It is said—indeed, it is a platitude—that timing is the art of politics. I hope that the Minister will be an artist in this matter, and that he will seize his opportunity which he now has for abolishing the gin trap. If he does that, and also uses the other powers to rid the country of rabbits, we shall be glad he introduced this Bill. I bless this Bill, and wish it well when it becomes an Act of Parliament.

10.12 p.m.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: While I welcome the Bill I am a little unhappy about Clause 10, which forbids the shooting of rabbits by night. One of

the most effective ways of destroying rabbits is to go out at night with a gun in a Land Rover with strong headlights or a searchlight with which to dazzle the rabbits. Then one can knock the rabbits over very easily.
I do not know why this is forbidden. We are asked to exterminate rabbits, and the gin trap is to be abolished, very rightly. Why, therefore, make it more difficult to get rid of the rabbits by not allowing one to go round at night and shoot them? We are allowed to shoot duck by night. Why are we not allowed to shoot rabbits by night? It is too late to do anything about it now, I suppose, but I should like to know the reason for it.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): This Clause applies to Scotland only, where night shooting was prohibited by an interpretation of the Ground Game Act, 1880, by the Scottish courts, which took a different view from the English courts. This legislation is in line with the Scottish interpretation.

10.13 p.m.

Dr. King: Among those who declare delight at the Bill in its amended form is a leading Hampshire farmer who informs me that 12 months ago the Alton branch of the National Farmers' Union resolved that it would have nothing to do with the wilful spreading of myxomatosis. I mention this because, as many of us have observed, and as, I think, most people will regret, there has been a declaration by some Cornish members of the National Farmers' Union that their task is to do all they can to spread myxomatosis in the few days that remain between the Third Reading of this Bill here and its being given the Royal Assent.
I have a fairly high regard for the British farmer, and I am inclined to think, especially after what the Minister said just now, that some Cornish farmers are letting the farming community down. One hopes that when, in their better moments, they look back to the time when they trailed diseased rabbits round the Cornish countryside in the last hours before the law made impossible this filthy practice, in the hope that they might, even if successful, add to the number of wretched, tumour-covered creatures, they will feel a little ashamed, and will go out with their guns to help to finish off the diseased rabbits.
I congratulate the Minister on a Bill which sets out to do a killing job which needs doing but which also says that some weapons are too dirty to use for that job, and I thank him for the very sympathetic way in which he has received our attempts to improve the Bill. Even when he refused to accept the Amendments which we moved from this side of the House, he did so as one who shared our views on the general issue and he turned them down with disarming frankness and good will.
When he came to the Box to accept the Amendment by which the wilful spreading of myxomatosis became illegal in this country, he earned not only the thanks of hon. Members on both sides of the House who had put their names to the new Clause but also the thanks and the good will of the vast majority of the British people. I congratulate him on this excellent Measure.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: This little Bill has had a most extraordinary Parliamentary history. It was brought from another place on All Fools' Day of this year. It will go back to another place a few days before the end of the present Session, after a very shaky start in this House. The Bill in its resent form commends the approval of both sides of the House, however, and that is, I think, important from the point of view of public opinion, because the support of public opinion will be necessary if the intentions underlying the Bill are to be brought to fulfilment.
The other strange fact is that, as the Minister said, since the Bill was drafted the scourge of myxomatosis has arrived to confuse the whole issue, and it is as well that we should consider its effect because, far from exterminating rabbits in this country, there is evidence to show that it may lead to a very serious increase in their numbers.
People, perhaps quite naturally, refuse to eat even healthy rabbits now that this disease is so well established, because when a rabbit has been killed, who can tell whether or not it has been infected? Official assurances that infected rabbits would not kill human beings will not satisfy people and persuade them to eat rabbits. As a result, there has been no trapping even of healthy rabbits; and if we stop trapping healthy rabbits—rabbits

immune from the disease—they are likely to spread at a natural but alarming rate.
My right hon. Friend's assurances that he intends to get the agricultural executive committees busy in clearing this country of rabbits are, therefore, very welcome, but it will need something much more than the efforts of the agricultural executive committees to do that. They cannot do much more than persuade. It requires all kinds of occupiers to assist them, and if one were to start to list the occupiers it would be a tremendous list, including large numbers of public authorities. I hope that my right hon. Friend will communicate his desires and intentions to all other Government Departments which may be affected and to all public authorities, especially those under the control of his own Department which occupy large areas of land, for example, the river boards. Rabbits abound on many flood banks protecting rivers, and if these banks are to be omitted from the scheme, then the efforts of other and more zealous occupiers will be of little avail.
I suppose it is too much of a counsel of perfection to hope that the clearance which is to take place by every possible means over the next 3½ months of winter will, in fact, exterminate rabbits. That is what we hope, but it is a counsel of perfection. Meanwhile, it has come to my notice, on what I regard as good authority—and I wonder whether it has come to the Minister's notice and whether the Parliamentary Secretary can confirm or deny this evidence in replying to the debate—that a most extraordinary experiment has been carried out in the south of England, namely, that about 200 wild rabbits have been innoculated against myxomatosis.
If that has happened, it is one of the most crazy things one has ever heard of. It is only because I have heard of it on good authority that I feel that the matter should be mentioned, and, if it has not been heard of by the Ministry, inquired into. Like other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I wish the Minister well in carrying out the intentions of the Bill.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: I congratulate the Minister on having successfully piloted this Bill through the House, although I am in no way satisfied


with its provisions. As I have said before, the removal of the rabbit from the game laws could be one of the most effective ways of dealing with it. Here we have a Bill which in some Clauses sets out to destroy rabbits but does not remove what safeguards them in another Clause. To remove the rabbit from the protection of the game laws would have effectively dealt with it in many parts of the country.
The Minister has a difficult task. The very diverse agriculture which we have in this country creates all kinds of anomalies. Rabbits in certain parts of the country do no harm to the land. They are looked upon by some of the farmers as a source of income. It would be very hard to persuade those farmers to get rid of rabbits. I am fully aware that when the Minister accepted the Amendment regarding the deliberate spreading of myxomatosis, he was meeting the feelings of Members in this House. He was also meeting the feelings of the majority of the people in the country.
There is another side to this question, and I want to put it. I have no use for myxomatosis. But here we are dealing with Nature, and in some of the emotional speeches that have been made that fact seems to have been overlooked. Nature is not emotional and is not sentimental, and when we are dealing with the operations of Nature we have to be very careful about introducing emotions and sentiment into our deliberations. The place of emotion and sentiment is to balance the hardness and harshness of logical, rational reasoning and action. What is the position here?
From now until the beginning of March, the rabbit population of this country will be at its lowest. Breeding has stopped for the winter season. Therefore, we should have attacked the rabbit population with all the means at our disposal now. Man must not spread myxomatosis. Because the Minister accepted the Amendment to that effect, more rabbits will suffer from myxomatosis than if he had refused it. From now until the end of March, the breeding rabbits are in their winter season. If they could have been destroyed, thousands of rabbits that will now be bred would never have been born; the parents would have died this winter. But thousands will be bred and will spread

over the country. They will contact rabbits with myxomatosis, and thousands of rabbits that might never have been born will suffer from the disease. That is the position that we must face.
We see all this in operation in the natural order of things time and time again. We should be very careful when dealing with Nature not to become sentimental, because Nature is hard. In its operations, Nature is cruel and has no feelings. The result is that whereas it would have been possible to wipe out colonies of rabbits during the winter by this hateful disease, those colonies will increase three, four and even five times in the next summer, and the whole lot will get myxomatosis.
I have not seen the statement by the Cornish farmers, but I can understand it. They are attacking the rabbit where it is weakest now. I recognise that public opinion has to be taken note of and that the feelings of this House have to be considered, but there is always another side that we should consider before we take action. I fear that as many rabbits, if not more rabbits, will suffer from myxomatosis as if the Minister had refused that Amendment.
Apart from those criticisms, I welcome the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be successful in operating it. We want the rabbit eliminated, but the task before the Minister is exceedingly difficult and his position full of all kind of anomalies and complications.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. John Morrison: I have not hitherto taken part in the debates on the Bill, and I do not intend to keep the House more than a brief moment. The Bill hinges on the question of myxomatosis and the provision of traps. I think the whole House agrees that we all thoroughly dislike myxomatosis, as do nearly all countrymen in the agricultural community. The future of the Bill depends upon the success of inventors of the humane trap.
Mr. Sawyer, who has done so much in inventing traps, particularly the Sawyer and Imbra traps, is a neighbour and constituent of mine. The whole House will join me in thanking him and others who are working on this important task and in wishing them well in expediting a proper and reasonable trap which works efficiently and humanely. But I ask my


right hon. Friend the Minister to make clear, either now or at a later stage, so that it may be clearly understood by anybody who has a really good trap about which he needs advice and which he wants to perfect and to patent, the channels through which one should apply and to whom provisional plans should be sent, whether to the Ministry, to Mr. Dudley and his committee, or to any other address.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Hayman: I am glad that the Minister has accepted the new Clause providing against the spread of myxomatosis. I thing it is a very healthy indication of the value of public opinion in this country. I am fully in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) when he says that Nature is ruthless, but let us carry that consideration a little further. The Minister has taken power tonight to permit scientific experiments with the virus of myxomatosis, and surely that means that that virus is capable of alteration. I have referred to an article which appeared in "The Times" some time ago in September, and which stated that the Australian scientists had produced more virulent types of myxomatosis because those that had been affecting the rabbit population of Australia were becoming less useful from their point of view.
If this virus can be altered, can it alter itself? Is there not some possibility of a new virus that might become dangerous to other animals? We are dealing with something about which we know very little, and that is why I was opposed to the deliberate spreading of myxomatosis. I think the Minister was and so was his predecessor, because neither encouraged its spread. Why? Because he and his advisers, I suggest, were afraid of the consequences. Up to now it is true that no other animal except the hare appears to have been affected by this disease, but myxomatosis was brought to Australia from Brazil. It had become endemic in Brazil and was not a lethal disease there. It became a lethal disease in Australia, and we are told it was more lethal in France, and the Parliamentary Secretary tonight has told us it is still more lethal here.
I do not wonder that people in the country now refuse to eat the flesh of the rabbit. I do not think I ever will touch

a rabbit as long as I live. There was also a lot of sense in the thousands of Cornish people refusing to eat blackberries because the petrified corpses of these rabbits were lying in the fields, lanes and hedgerows and the blowflies were coming from the carcases to the blackberries.
I congratulate the Minister on accepting this new Clause, because the Petition which I presented to the House a fortnight ago, signed by 126,000 people—the signatures being obtained by one ordinary family in a few weeks—showed the effect which the revolting spectacle of these rabbits throughout the countryside had on the people. I am glad that the Minister took notice of it, and I hope that the disease will die away and the rabbits, too.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I do not wish to keep the House, but I should like to congratulate the Minister on the accommodating manner in which he met the wishes of the House about this Bill. When it was first introduced it was the gin trap that caused horror among hon. Members on both sides, and I remember it was impressed upon the Minister that the utmost use should be made of alternative methods of destruction. The Minister gave great consideration to those alternatives. Since then, the whole question of rabbit destruction has been changed by the advent of myxomatosis, and it is clear that there will not be nearly so much suffering from the gin trap as in the past.
The very fact that the ravages of the disease are to be accepted as an opportunity by the Minister for impressing upon the farming community the opportunities that exist for wiping out the pest by concentrating on the more humane methods of destruction should give us all considerable satisfaction. We welcome the attitude of the Minister, since we wish to see the end of the rabbit pest but this is a humane and animal-loving country in which inhumane methods of destruction, even of pests, cannot be tolerated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas) is worried because he assumed that as a result of the Bill the shooting of rabbits at night in England from a Land Rover is to be stopped. I should not like it to be thought that this is so in England. That restriction applies only to Scotland,


so it will still be possible to shoot rabbits in this way in England and so help to end the sufferings of those animals which are suffering from myxomatosis.
With these few words I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on carrying through his first Measure in his new appointment and I wish him every success in the future

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: I will reply briefly to one or two specific queries which have been raised. To my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), who has just inquired about shooting rabbits at night in England and Wales, may I say that this is still legal. It is only in Scotland that it cannot be done by the use of headlamps. I hope that my hon. Friend will shortly be engaged upon it, since it is certainly a useful job.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman might just as well go the whole hog, now that he has made that reference to the shooting of rabbits at night, by telling the House the reason why it is forbidden in Scotland. It is because the game laws are more firmly entrenched in Scotland than in England, and the business of the gamekeepers at night would be even more difficult than now if they had to differentiate between the people who shoot rabbits and those who shoot pheasants and other birds that are valuable to the landowners of Scotland.

Mr. Nugent: This is not the time to enter into that discussion.
If I may deal with other points of importance that were raised, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) asked about the rumour that deliberate inoculation of rabbits was taking place. It is true that private persons in Sussex have been inoculating rabbits against myxomatosis, their object, no doubt, being to try to establish a strain of rabbits which would survive in a part of the country where the disease is widespread. The inoculant will give immunity probably for a period of six months, and then a fresh inoculation would be required, and the immunity does not pass on to the progeny, so that the effect is likely to be very limited.

Mr. Renton: In other words, my hon. Friend is confirming the reports which I had this week-end. Can he say whether there is anything which his Department can do to stop this obviously stupid practice?

Mr. Nugent: My hon. and learned Friend will have noted the terms of the Bill, and my right hon. Friend is not taking power to prevent such a practice. I do not doubt, however, that those who have done this will note the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend and what we understand to be the limitation of the practice.
In reply to the query raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison), my right hon. Friend has said on previous stages of the Bill that we shall welcome at all times the inventors of new traps at the Ministry. If they will make application to the Ministry or to the Advisory Committee on Humane Traps, of which Mr. Dudley is the chairman, they will be welcomed with open arms. We have already received quite a number of designs from different inventors and these, of course, were carefully considered in the initial stages. We shall be very glad to have new ones. It is most difficult to find a practical humane trap and we cannot have too many suggestions put to us.
One other point to which I should reply was that raised by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) about the possible dangers of the virus. It has been said before, but I may say it again, that the virus in its present form is dangerous and, in fact, lethal only to rabbits and, very rarely, to hares, but no responsible person, certainly no hon. Member of this House, would wish to see any virus released widespread in this country. It is always bound to be a danger and anxiety and no one could ever tell for certain what might happen to it.

Mr. Kenyon: Is it not a fact that a number of veterinary surgeons innoculated hares with this virus and it took no effect? They then innoculated themselves and it also had no effect.

Mr. Nugent: I was not aware of that, but I am glad to hear that, at any rate, the veterinary surgeons survived that very dangerous experiment. The fact is that


the virus is apparently not dangerous to human beings or other animals.
The clear view of our Advisory Committee is that by far the greater part of this disease has been spread automatically by fleas on the rabbits, and whatever part has been played by human intervention that part undoubtedly has been very small.
In the last few words said about this Bill, which my right hon. Friend has so successfully carried through the House, may I say that it has tried to find a proper balance between the obvious necessity to control and exterminate the rabbit, which costs us so very dearly on our farms and forests, and the humanitarian desire we all have to bring to an end the use of the gin trap and human intervention in the spread of myxomatosis. I believe that it has found the right balance. If hon. Members opposite feel critical of the fact that we are taking until 1958 to ban the gin trap let it be recorded that we, as a Government, are the Government which has finally put a date to the banning of the gin trap. For that we can ask for some credit from all concerned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — HOSPITAL FACILITIES, CORNWALL

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir C. Drewe.]

10.44 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I desire to raise the question of the need, the immediate need, for an area hospital in Cornwall. The hospital would be situated within the region administered by the West Cornwall Hospital Management Committee; but West Cornwall is really a misnomer, because it includes everything west of Bodmin, which is most of Cornwall and by far the greater part of the population.
Before the war, there was one hospital of 200 beds at Truro. There were three general hospitals of under 100 beds each and nine small hospitals. All these were voluntary hospitals. The hospitals run by the county councils were the Tehidy Sanatorium, the county isolation hospital and the hospital sections of

various public assistance institutions. The Royal Cornwall Infirmary at Truro was founded in 1799 partly with money from a closed Lazar House at Bodmin. The Redruth Miners' Hospital was founded in 1863 to cue for miners in what has been described as the most mineralised part in the world. I live there. I spent my boyhood in the shadow of the Royal Cornwall Infirmary at Truro, and for the last 25 years I have lived within a stone's throw of the Redruth Hospital. I know them fairly well.
Each voluntary hospital had its own independent management committee and was staffed for the most part by general practitioners. I understand that not all of the few consultants were fully qualified for their speciality. Surveys sponsored by the Nuffield Trust showed that not even the Truro hospital was big enough to maintain the many specialist departments that modern treatment requires or to attract well qualified consultants. Families of committee members more often than not went to London when they needed hospital treatment. The need for a large central hospital where properly equipped and staffed consultant services could be established was fully recognised. As there was no possibility of raising funds to build a central hospital, the Nuffield Trust recommended the next best thing—that of getting the existing hospitals to co-operate in setting up new services, one here, another there, under properly qualified consultants.
These praiseworthy attempts were frustrated by insuperable difficulties, partly by the poverty of the hospital committees and partly by their insular independence. If ever justification was needed for the nationalisation of the hospitals, it could be found in the poverty of the voluntary hospitals and their insularity. The sanatorium run by the county council lacked many amenities, but the council had prepared plans for a new nurses home and a new hospital block. Both were sanctioned by the Labour Government and were finally opened by the present Minister of Health. The county isolation hospital in Truro was good. At Barncoose public assistance institution, the county council had initiated an experiment in geriatrics catering for old people needing hospital treatment. This institution, despite the terrible condition of some parts of the granite


fortress which serves as a hospital block, has done excellent work.
Since nationalisation, the question of providing consultant services to be used in a general hospital has been revived. In the early years, much time was devoted to allocating hospitals for specialist services to serve a wider area. These proposals evoked protests from town after town. The hospital management committee and the sub-committees spent an enormous amount of time preparing these plans, drafted their proposals, and eventually held public meetings in the towns concerned. These interim proposals were put forward pending the provision of a central hospital.
This is a timetable of the efforts of the hospital management committee from 1949 to 1954. On 3th May, 1949, the regional hospital board requested the hospital management committee to send a report on long-term planning with urgent consideration of a central hospital site. On 13th September, 1950, there was a letter from Mr. Waterhouse, the assistant secretary to the regional hospital board, conveying this committee's recommendation that the Truro site should be acquired, with the Redruth site as an alternative.
Many of us felt that the Redruth site would have been a better one. I suppose that it is natural for one living within half a mile of this site to think that, but I would point out that Redruth is the largest urban unit in the county with a population of 36,000, that Redruth would have been easier for Penzance in the far west and not any farther for Falmouth, and that Truro would have no farther to come than Redruth would have to come to Truro. However, Truro was decided on.

Sir Harold Roper: What about Launceston?

Mr. Hayman: Launceston comes under the Plymouth Regional Hospital Board.
On 31st October, 1950, there was a meeting at Truro with two doctors from the Ministry of Health with regard to this site and hospital. On 30th November, 1950, a letter was sent from the Ministry to the chairman of the South-West Regional Hospital Board, the third paragraph of which read:

Provided that good progress is now made with the preliminary planning in connection with this new hospital I can assure you that the project is quite high on the priority list for such major works, and that, as far as can be foreseen at present, there are good prospects of the necessary allocation on the general investment programme being made available to enable a start to be made in the reasonably near future.
On 2nd January, 1951, there was a letter from the regional hospital board about the setting up of an area hospital committee. The first meeting of that committee took place on 13th February, 1951, when a medical advisory committee was established. On 17th December, 1952, the report and plans for the hospital were completed. On 26th March, 1953, there was a meeting of the area hospital committee at which the medical advisory committee's report and plans were received and approved for submission to the Minister.
On 15th May, 1953, plans were forwarded to the Ministry of Health. On 19th August, 1954, there was a letter from Dr. Kelly, the senior administrative medical officer of the region, stating that plans were under consideration by the medical planning division of the Ministry and their architects.
I submit that the whole of that diary goes to show that an immense amount of work had been put in on the plans for this hospital and that the hospital management committee had reasonable cause to think that the Minister would arrange for the necessary money to be made available for this hospital to be started soon. That is not so.
On the strength of the assurances given in the letter of 30th November, 1950, it was decided to develop the specialist services. Several fresh departments were set up, and the board appointed several new consultants. Before nationalisation, there were very few consultants. Now there are 37. In 1948 there were 1,212 beds in general hospitals. Today, there are only 1,198. There have been many expedients in an effort to provide some sort of accommodation and equipment for specialists, but this only amounts to a policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The orthopaedic beds have been taken for other specialist services, and there is nowhere for a dental surgeon to work in the Royal Cornwall Infirmary at Truro. The out-parents' department at Truro is regularly dealing with troubles of a major


degree because of lack of accommodation in the in-patients' section of the hospital.
All this is equally true of general medicine, and the difficulties are not properly reflected in the waiting lists of people seeking admission, because many of the patients—or would-be patients—are acutely ill and have to be treated in their own homes. These difficulties are insuperable without a new area hospital and are creating deadly frustration in the health services of the county. It might almost be said that the consultants have been brought to Cornwall under false pretences, because they were given to understand that this new area hospital would come into being very soon, whereas in fact they now find that it will not come for a very long time.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will convey to the Minister the fact that the services have out-run all the available accommodation and that there is no possibility of further accommodation, such as the provision of beds for dental surgery cases. There is no possibility of further very necessary developments. The correspondence shows that at one time the situation was fully realised by the regional hospital board and by the Ministry, but since May of last year, all progress seems to have stopped.
I should like to call attention to Outpatient and casualty figures. These have nearly doubled in six years. In 1948, outpatient attendances totalled 76,500. In 1953, the figure had risen to just over 134,000, and in 1954 to just over 135,000. The casualty attendances were 25,500 in 1948, but 45,500 in 1953 and nearly 50,000 in 1954. In this connection, I would make the point that during the summer months of June, July, August, and September, the population which has to be served by the West Cornwall Hospital Management Committee increases by 50 per cent. The population of the area is about 300,000, and it is estimated that there are 150,000 visitors coming in during those months.
Although the Ministry will not admit it, ordinary people can see what is the strain put on the accommodation of the hospitals and upon the staffs. The staffs normally expect to have their holidays during the holiday months, but the hard fact is that they have to work harder even than at other periods of the year.

The visitors, and we welcome them, probably use the hospitals far more than otherwise because, unfortunately, road accidents naturally increase when traffic becomes congested during the summer months.
I submit that the needs of the hospitals are constantly expanding and that an area hospital is the only solution. The area hospital planning committee met on no fewer than 39 occasions, and planned and re-planned on the assumption that the scheme would proceed, thinking that they were performing a valuable public duty. But much of that effort has been wasted because, all the time, equipment is improving, building design and layout is improving, modern technique is improving, which means that much of the work which has been already completed will have to be done again.
The area hospital planning advisory committee has been asked to consider plans for a new district hospital at St. Austell. No one will deny that the new district hospital is necessary, but if the Minister thinks that this hospital will be any substitution for the area hospital, I suggest that he is making a profound mistake. Some of us may be under the impression——

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The hon. Member will be aware that there are special conditions at St. Austell which give rise to a demand for a local hospital there. A legacy left for a hospital there has not been used.

Mr. Hayman: I am coming to that. The hon. Member has taken the words out of my mouth. I said categorically that I agreed with the need for a district hospital at St. Austell, but I object to a district hospital there being used as a substitute for an area hospital. The Treasury could save money, because there happens to be a large bequest which could be used for a hospital at St. Austell. By all means let us have a district hospital there, but we must have an area hospital at the same time. I hope that the Minister will impress that on the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Minister must take into account the backward state of the hospital provision in Cornwall before nationalisation, and also that we have not inherited any military hospitals as have other parts of the country. I should like to refer to a


questionaire sent to the political candidates in Cornwall at the time of the last General Election. We were asked whether, if we were elected, we would give our full support to this scheme with a view to ensuring its completion within the lifetime of this Parliament. I will not quote any of the replies except my own. I said that the very fact that the Minister of Health in the Labour Government, with the backing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, approved of the proposal for a new hospital for Cornwall at the beginning of 1952–53, was sufficient guarantee of our sincerity.
I wish to stress that the Minister of Health in the Labour Government in 1951 sanctioned the scheme for this new area hospital, and that it would have been begun in 1952–53. We are now in the year 1954–55, and we would like to know if the Minister will try to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide the money for a start to be made in 1955–56. The work being done by the consultants and the nursing staffs and the technicians in the hospitals in Cornwall is carried out under extreme difficulty.
Many of us feel that the time has come when the Minister should take note of the immense amount of money going out in salaries and wages. As I have said to the Minister of Education in relation to schools, if we are spending so much money in salaries and wages, a reasonable percentage should be tied up for capital expenditure on buildings, otherwise a great part of what is spent on salaries and wages is lost, owing to people having to work in defective buildings.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I wish to support the plea for an area hospital. As I understand it, two years ago the regional board in Bristol informed the hospital management committee that this would be a first priority for the South-West Region. The hon. Member has said that the detailed plan has at last been required. If so, is it true that some officer in the regional office in Bristol forecast that building would start in 1953. I am informed by friends on the management committee that the situation is desperate; that the need for beds is desperate. Can the Parliamentary Secretary use her considerable powers of persuasion in asking the Chancellor of

the Exchequer to increase the allocation from central funds so that progress can be made with the desperately needed scheme, as has been envisaged by the regional board?

11.7 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne (Mr. Hayman) for raising this question, for there are obviously certain misapprehensions which, I hope, I shall be able to clear up in the time at my disposal. The West Cornwall area is acknowledged to be a difficult one. It has a population of 260,000 and 1,289 beds. As the hon. Member has said, there has been considerable discussion about where the site of the area hospital should be. I will say at once that there is no question of the Minister going back on the priority need for an area hospital, and the suggestion that we are asking them to consider plans for St. Austell as a substitute is unjustified. We hope that the board will not hold up any plans for St. Austell because of any idea that we are deliberately delaying the hospital. We have had no plans definitely about St. Austell from the board yet.

Mr. Hayman: May I also take it that plans for the area hospital will not be held up?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to complete my statement that the St. Austell project will come in the area allocation. I should like to develop my argument in sequence, as the hon. Member did.
With regard to the site, Truro was chosen because 93 per cent. of the population are within 24 miles of it, whereas at Redruth only 86 per cent. would be within 24 miles of the site. For that, and other reasons, the board agreed that the site at Truro should be chosen. The Royal Cornwall Infirmary will remain an integral part of the hospital service in the area, but it did not offer a suitable site for development.
The site which has been chosen is owned by the Treliske Estates, and while the owners are anxious to complete negotiations for a sale to us, and we are equally anxious to settle with them, we are having difficulties with the lessees, the


Truro Golf Club. Until agreement is reached with them, we cannot finalise the price and complete the negotiations. The owners are pressing us to complete the contract of sale, but until we have settled the difficulty with the golf club, it is not possible to agree a price with the owners. We hope that the negotiations will be completed shortly. The site having been chosen, the basic problem rests on the ability to find the capital expenditure from central sources.
I must place on record that there is no evidence in the Department's files that a previous Minister specified any date for this scheme. There were general hopes for many priorities—priorities in the new towns where 250,000 people have been moved in and where there are no hospital beds at all; priority for the teaching hospitals which, like Cornwall, are acknowledged and registered in the Ministry as a priority claim upon central funds when the financial needs of the country make it possible for a larger capital allocation to be allowed. But we have no evidence of any date having been given for the commencement of this hospital. That does not mean to say that we do not accept and agree with the need for a hospital in this region. We recognise that one is necessary.
Despite the fact that we have had £1 million more this year than in any previous year of the National Health Service, we do not see an opportunity of being able to include a priority scheme of this magnitude—which may well cost £1 million—within the next two years. This is dependent on the financial allocations given to us. It will then have to be decided which of these very important priorities I have mentioned—new towns, where the position is similar to that of Cornwall, and certain of the teaching hospitals which suffered severely through enemy action—can have capital expenditure for a general hospital.
The House will know only too well that with the additional capital we deliberately gave priority this year—and to a certain

extent we anticipate that we will next year—to the mental side. Cornwall has had its fair share of that as I have witnessed today, because I have been down in the locality of the hon. Member to see the mental side of the Health Service. They have had a fair share of the allocation. I hope it will be possible for an allocation to be made for the central financing of the area hospital as soon as it is possible to increase the main general allocation. This scheme is too big for a regional allocation to meet the cost.
No new general hospital has yet been centrally financed since the advent of the Health Service. The first new project will be one of nearly £3 million spent on mental health over the next three years. St. Austell has been fortunate in having two bequests totalling £105,000. Although the regional hospital board envisaged building 50 or 60 beds to make a general hospital to which would be attached 20 maternity and 100 chronic sick beds, they have put no definite proposals or lay-out before the Ministry.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: Is my hon. Friend saying that there have been no proposals at all?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: We know they want to do it, but they have not put a lay-out before us. Consideration is being given to extending St. Austell hospital rather than to providing a new building. That is a matter for the hospital management committee to consider as an alternative suggestion. Getting capital expenditure for a hospital is the cheapest part of it. Once provided, the capital does not meet maintenance, staffing and the whole cost of maintaining a new unit which must necessarily come from central funds and the allocation——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Fourteen Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.